Beck v. Bethpage Union Free School District
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Pirreca v. Smithtown Cent. Sch. Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Gerner v. Shop-Rite of Uniondale, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Gleyzer v. SNL Meat & Produce, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Barone v. Risi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Russo v. Incorporated Village of Atlantic Beach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Matteo v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. (2d Cir. 2013)
- Gordon v. Pitney Bowes Management Services, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- King v. 230 Park Owners Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Acevedo v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Acevedo v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Cassone v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
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
The plaintiffs commenced this action against, among others, the defendants Bethpage Union Free School District and the Bethpage Public Library (hereinafter together the appellants), alleging that they were negligent in placing the book cart at the end of the aisle in such a way that the wheels of the book cart extended into the aisle, thereby creating a dangerous condition. The appellants asserted that the book cart was open and obvious and did not constitute an inherently dangerous condition, and moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court denied the appellants’ motion. We affirm.
The appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that they maintained the library in a reasonably safe condition, and that the wheel of the book cart was an open and obvious condition which was not inherently dangerous (see Gradwohl v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 70 AD3d 634 [2010]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]). In support of their motion, the appellants submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff, the library’s director, and an independent computer consultant present on the date of the accident, in addition to several photographs depicting the aisle with a book cart placed perpendicular at the end and a close-up of the book cart’s wheels. The injured plaintiff testified that, as she reached the end of one of the aisles between the bookshelves located in the media room, walking about five feet behind her husband, her right foot caught a wheel of the book cart. She did not see the book cart, which had been positioned directly against the end of the bookshelf and was extending into the aisle, having entered the aisle from the opposite end, even though she had been at the library for about 20 minutes before the accident occurred.
Given the testimony of the injured plaintiff, and the other evidence submitted by the appellants showing that the book carts were for the use of employees of the library, known as pages, to return items to the bookshelves, that a page was in the media room at the time of the accident, and a book cart, when placed perpendicular to the end of a bookshelf, would be mostly obstructed from the view of a person walking down the aisle in the same direction as the injured plaintiff, the Supreme Court properly determined that the appellants failed to demonstrate their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Stoppeli v Yacenda, 78 AD3d 815 [2010]; Shah v Mercy Med. Ctr., 71 AD3d 1120 [2010]; see also Gradwohl v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 70 AD3d 634 [2010]; Mazzarelli v 54 Plus Realty Corp., 54 AD3d 1008 [2008]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.