Opinion
Argued December 21, 1999
January 31, 2000
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated September 19, 1998, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Worby Borowick Groner, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Paul J. Campson, Salvatore Barone, and Kevin Harrington of counsel), for appellants.
Kelly, Hodukavich Goldberg, Tarrytown, N.Y. (Giovanna Beaulieu of counsel), for respondent.
GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The affidavit of the plaintiffs' expert, submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion, was conclusory, not based on the expert's personal knowledge, and did not set forth any specific safety guidelines allegedly violated by the merchandise display base over which the injured plaintiff fell. Therefore, that affidavit was insufficient to defeat the defendant's motion for summary judgment (see, Levitt v. County of Suffolk, 145 A.D.2d 414, 415 ; Estate of Burke v. Repetti Co., 255 A.D.2d 483; see also,McCrorey v. City of Buffalo, 210 A.D.2d 908 ).
The merchandise display base was an open and obvious condition readily observable through the reasonable use of one's senses (Binensztok v. Marshall Stores, 228 A.D.2d 534 ; see also, Russell v. Archer Bldg. Ctrs., Inc., 219 A.D.2d 772, 773 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion.
MANGANO, P.J., ALTMAN, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.