You are here: / / FOOT OF A DECORATIVE FENCE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS...

FOOT OF A DECORATIVE FENCE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The Second Department determined the foot of a decorative fence over which plaintiff tripped was open and obvious as a matter of law and not actionable:

While a landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition … , “there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous” … . “While the issue of whether a hazard is . . . open and obvious is generally fact-specific and thus usually a jury question, a court may determine that a risk was open and obvious as a matter of law when the established facts compel that conclusion, and may do so on the basis of clear and undisputed evidence” … .

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the fence, including the “leg” or foot of the fence, was open and obvious, as it was readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses and, as a matter of law, was not inherently dangerous … .

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to her contention, she did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the foot of the fence constituted a “trap for the unwary” because it was somehow obscured … . Gerner v Shop-Rite of Uniondale, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02407, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

You might also like
​ WHEN THE FAILURE TO PRESENT FACTS IN A PRIOR MOTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED, THE SECOND MOTION DOES NOT FIT THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW OR AN ALLOWABLE SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE TO ADMIT IMPROPERLY SOUGHT CONCESSIONS THAT WENT TO HEART OF THE CONTROVERSY.
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION UNSUCCESSFULLY RAISED USURY AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; DEFENDANT ARGUED THE BROKER’S COMMISSION, TITLE INSURANCE COST AND ATTORNEY’S FEE CONSTITUTED A COVER FOR USURY (SECOND DEPT).
Wood Which Fell From a Shelf When Plaintiff Inadvertently Moved It Was the Condition for the Occurrence of the Event, But Not the Cause
REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS NOT MET, PROOF OF MAILING INSUFFICIENT.
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE EXISTS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE LAW DAY CLOSING WAS WILLFUL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACTION TO RETAIN THE DOWN PAYMENT PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEEKING THE RETURN OF THE DOWN PAYMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A DEFENDANT IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH HAS “FAILED TO APPEAR” IS NOT ENTITLED TO NOTICE OF A MOTION TO CONFIRM A REFEREE’S REPORT, NOTWITHSTANDING DICTA IN PRIOR 2ND DEPARTMENT RULINGS; A DETAILED AND COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS WHERE A DEFENDANT IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION HAS DEFAULTED (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

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANT’S SNOW REMOVAL MAY HAVE... CLAIMANT STRUCK A DOWNED LIGHT POLE WHICH HAD ROTTED BELOW GROUND, STATE DID...