You are here: / / Single Step Was Open and Obvious and Not Inherently Dangerous

Single Step Was Open and Obvious and Not Inherently Dangerous

The Second Department determined a single step separating the carpeted dining area from the rest of the restaurant was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous:

A property owner has a duty to maintain his or her property in a reasonably safe manner … . 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 … . Here, the defendants … submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the single step separating the carpeted dining area from the rest of the restaurant in which the plaintiff allegedly fell, which consisted of wooden flooring, was open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous … . Dillman v City Cellar Wine, Bar & Grill, 2014 NY Slip Op 08598, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

Similar issue and result in Varon v New York City Dept of Educ, 2014 NY Slip Op 08633, 2nd Dept 12-10-14.

 

You might also like
REVOLVER FOUND BY A PASSERBY SEVEN BLOCKS FROM THE CRIME SCENE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE ALLEGATIONS IN A PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ARE CONTROVERTED, THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE RULED UPON WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
TOWN DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF A RUSTY DRAINAGE PIPE IN THE WATER AT A TOWN BEACH AND WAS THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR THE INJURY TO THE INFANT PLAINTIFF WHO CUT HIS FOOT ON THE PIPE WHEN WALKING IN THE WATER (SECOND DEPT). ​
TERMINATION OF OUT OF WORK SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW IS NOT ARBITRABLE, PETITION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Elevator Company Which Agrees to Keep Elevator in a Safe Operating Condition May Be Liable to Injured Passenger
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 90-DAY-NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD MOVED FROM THE RESIDENCE; HOWEVER THE BANK WAS STILL REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE TO THE DEFENDANT; THE PROOF THAT NOTICE WAS MAILED WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THEREBY DEPRIVING PLAINTIFF OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Psychiatrist Deemed an Employee of a Counseling Center Repeated Invitations to Review 60 to 80 Banker’s Boxes of Documents In...