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
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD FROM A DISMANTLED FENCE WHICH FELL OFF A FORKLIFT; DISMANTLING THE FENCE WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY AND THE ACCIDENT WAS THE RESULT OF A COVERED ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S PROOF THAT DEFENDANT SUPPLIED THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE WIRE MESH TO THE RETAILER IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION WAS SPECULATIVE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.
THE PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE ASSAULT SECOND AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON THIRD CONVICTIONS WERE BASED ON SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ACTS, THEREFORE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT WARRANTED; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BASED ON A NEW JERSEY CONVICTION WHICH WAS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH RPAPL 1306; DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
NON-PROFIT RETREAT ENTITLED TO REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR ENTIRE PROPERTY, NOT JUST THE DEVELOPED PORTION.
ALTHOUGH THE BROKER MAY HAVE REQUESTED THAT PLAINTIFF BE ADDED TO THE INSURANCE POLICY, THE BROKER ALLEGEDLY DID NOT VERIFY THE COVERAGE WAS IN PLACE BEFORE ERRONEOUSLY REPRESENTING TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT IT WAS INSURED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BROKER BREACHED A COMMON-LAW OR CONTRACTUAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
REFEREE’S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A LOCAL COURT RULE DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE FORECLOSURE SALE.

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...