Pampillonia v. Burducea
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court properly denied, upon reargument, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of their motion, the defendants primarily argued that the allegedly dangerous condition which caused the subject accident was open and obvious. “Although there is no duty to warn of an open and obvious condition, this principle does not absolve a landowner of the duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition” (Mooney v Petro, Inc., 51 AD3d 746, 747 [2008]; see Pastore v Town of Harrison, 57 AD3d 636, 637 [2008]; Ruiz v Hart Elm Corp., 44 AD3d 842,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Cupo v. KarfunkelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Salomon v. PrainitoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Smalls v. AJI Industries, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2008
- Mooney v. Petro, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Ruiz v. Hart Elm Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Martinez v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Campoverde v. Sound Housing, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Campoverde v. Sound Housing, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Cassell v. County of WestchesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Maldonado v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 2010
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.