Opinion
CA 02-00468
October 1, 2002.
Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Ontario County (Henry, Jr., J.), entered October 11, 2001, which granted defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
STEPHEN D. ARONSON, CANANDAIGUA, FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
CHARLES A. HALL, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., WISNER, SCUDDER, BURNS, AND GORSKI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that she allegedly sustained when she fell while exiting defendant church on a sunny afternoon. She alleges that the step down from the landing to the walkway is deceptive and, in the absence of an adequate warning, constitutes a dangerous condition. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendant met its burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( cf. Eisenhart v. The Marketplace, 176 A.D.2d 1220). The photographs submitted by defendant in support of its motion establish that there is a high contrast between the red tiles on the landing and the black macadam of the walkway and that the landing was not constructed in such a way as to appear to be on the same level as the walkway ( see Fluksik v. Delmar Owners, 248 A.D.2d 667; see also Stillman v. Frankel, 44 A.D.2d 821, affd 36 N.Y.2d 899; Brooks v. Bergdorf-Goodman Co., 5 A.D.2d 162). In response, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).