Case ID: ad3d_129/html/1013-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anthony DeLorenzo et al., Appellants, v Robert Bales et al., Respondents.
    [12 NYS3d 260]
   In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated July 15, 2014, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and, in effect, denied their cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On November 14, 2010, the plaintiff Anthony DeLorenzo (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly sustained injuries when he slipped and fell on a mat while exiting the front door of a house owned by the defendants. The injured plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, thereafter commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of consortium. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiffs cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion and, in effect, denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that neither the mat itself nor its placement on the deck of their house constituted an inherently dangerous condition (see Sosa v RS 2001, Inc., 106 AD3d 720 [2013]; Leib v Silo Rest., Inc., 26 AD3d 359, 360 [2006]; Rosa v Southren, 8 AD3d 648 [2004]; Mansueto v Worster, 1 AD3d 412, 413 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and properly, in effect, denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit.

Rivera, J.R, Skelos, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.