Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Katz v. Westchester County Healthcare Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 1, 2011

82 A.D.3d 712; 917 N.Y.2d 896

Cases that cite this one

36 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Pellegrino v. Trapasso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Pellegrino v. Trapasso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Dispensa v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
Wiesner v. Schick's Take Home Foods Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2025)
Wiesner v. Schick's Take Home Foods Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2025)
Shermazanova v. Amerihealth Med., P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Doughim v. M & US Property, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Oruc v. Zelik (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Evans v. Fields (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Sebagh v. Capital Fitness, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Mullen v. Helen Keller Services for the Blind (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Lazic v. Trump Village Section 3, Inc. Co-Op (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Baron v. 305-323 East Shore Road Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Abrams v. Berelson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Calandrino v. Town of Babylon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Cassone v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Surujnaraine v. Valley Stream Central High School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Atehortua v. Lewin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Bilancione v. Garden Homes Mgt. Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Streit v. Katrine Apts. Assoc., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Reed v. 64 JWB, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Mongelli v. Emart Dept. Stores, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Karpel v. National Grid Generation, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Robbins v. 237 Ave. X, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Graffino v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*713A property owner has a duty to maintain his or her property in a reasonably safe condition (see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]). However, a property owner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition, which as a matter of law is not inherently dangerous (see Tyz v First St. Holding Co., Inc., 78 AD3d 818 [2010]; Weiss v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 70 AD3d 932 [2010]; Bretts v Lincoln Plaza Assoc., Inc., 67 AD3d 943 [2009]; Neville v 187 E. Main St., LLC, 33 AD3d 682 [2006]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]). Whether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances. A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted (see Stopped v Yacenda, 78 AD3d 815, 816 [2010]; Villano v Strathmore Terrace Homeowners Assn., Inc., 76 AD3d 1061 [2010]; Shah v Mercy Med. Ctr., 71 AD3d 1120 [2010]; Mazzarelli v 54 Plus Realty Corp., 54 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2008]). Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged condition that caused the plaintiff to trip and fall was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Carson v Baldwin Union Free School Dist., 77 AD3d 878 [2010]; see generally Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]). Since the defendants did not meet their initial burden as the movants, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Covello, J.E, Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.