Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Terranova v. Staten Island University Hospital

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


December 16, 2008

ARLENE TERRANOVA, RESPONDENT,
v.
STATEN ISLAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, APPELLANT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (McMahon, J.), dated January 29, 2008, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, EDWARD D. CARNI and JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.

(Index No. 102003/06)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

A landowner is under no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition, which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous (see Fitzgerald v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 17 AD3d 522; Orlando v Audax Constr. Copr., 14 AD3d 500; Capozzi v Huhne, 14 AD3d 474; Jang Hee Lee v Sung Whun Oh, 3 AD3d 473; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48). Here, the plaintiff allegedly was injured when she tripped on the footrest of a wheelchair in a hospital room. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the presence of the wheelchair was open and obvious, known to the plaintiff, and not inherently dangerous (see Mastellone v City of New York, 29 AD3d 540; Fitzgerald v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 17 AD3d at 522; Weiner v Saks Fifth Ave., 266 AD2d 390; Lamia v Federated Dept. Stores, 263 AD2d 498; Sewer v Fat Albert's Warehouse, 235 AD2d 414). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

SPOLZINO, J.P., FLORIO, CARNI and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.

20081216

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.