Legal Opinion
Holdos v. American Consumer Shows, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 24, 2012PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
There is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]). Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them by presenting evidence that the yellow and blue cable cover over which the plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell while attending a trade show in a community college gymnasium was open and obvious, and was not inherently dangerous (see Russ v Fried, 73 AD3d 1153, 1154…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Alvarez v. Prospect HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Cupo v. KarfunkelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Jang Hee Lee v. Sung Whun OhAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Pipitone v. 7-Eleven, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Khaimova v. Osnat Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Chaney v. Starbucks Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- Benjamin v. Trade Fair Supermarket, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Benson v. IT&LY Hairfashion, NAAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Hayward v. Zoria Hous., LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020