From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boyle v. Pottery Barn Outlet

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 7, 2014
117 A.D.3d 665 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-05-7

Elizabeth BOYLE, et al., appellants, v. POTTERY BARN OUTLET, respondent.

Alonso Krangle LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Andres F. Alonso of counsel), for appellants. McAndrew, Conboy & Prisco, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Mary C. Azzaretto of counsel), for respondent.



Alonso Krangle LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Andres F. Alonso of counsel), for appellants. McAndrew, Conboy & Prisco, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Mary C. Azzaretto of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated February 24, 2012, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Elizabeth Boyle allegedly was injured when she tripped and fell over a cardboard box in the aisle of a store owned by the defendant. On its motion for summary judgment, the defendant made a prima facie showing that the complained-of condition was both open and obvious, i.e., readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law ( see Zegarelli v. Dundon, 102 A.D.3d 958, 958 N.Y.S.2d 302;Atehortua v. Lewin, 90 A.D.3d 794, 935 N.Y.S.2d 102;Robinson v. 206–16 Hollis Ave. Food Corp., 82 A.D.3d 735, 918 N.Y.S.2d 161;see also Stern v. Costco Wholesale, 63 A.D.3d 1139, 882 N.Y.S.2d 266;Gagliardi v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 777, 860 N.Y.S.2d 207; Espinoza v. Hemar Supermarket, Inc., 43 A.D.3d 855, 841 N.Y.S.2d 680). In opposition, while the plaintiffs submitted the affidavit of a professional engineer, the affidavit was speculative, conclusory, and lacking in foundation ( see Paladino v. Time Warner Cable of N.Y. City, 16 A.D.3d 646, 648, 793 N.Y.S.2d 63), and thus failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Summaries of

Boyle v. Pottery Barn Outlet

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 7, 2014
117 A.D.3d 665 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Boyle v. Pottery Barn Outlet

Case Details

Full title:Elizabeth BOYLE, et al., appellants, v. POTTERY BARN OUTLET, respondent.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: May 7, 2014

Citations

117 A.D.3d 665 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
117 A.D.3d 665
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 3222

Citing Cases

Williams v. E & R Jam. Food Corp.

Section 3, Inc., 134 A.D.3d 776, 777). Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to…

Williams v. E & R Jam. Food Corp.

Section 3, Inc., 134 A.D.3d 776, 777, 20 N.Y.S.3d 643 ). Here, the defendants established their prima facie…