Case Name: Antoinette D'Angelo et al., Appellants, v. Fred S. DeLucia et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2001-05-07
Citations: 283 A.D.2d 385
Docket Number: 
Parties: Antoinette D’Angelo et al., Appellants, v Fred S. DeLucia et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 283
Pages: 385–386

Head Matter:
Antoinette D’Angelo et al., Appellants, v Fred S. DeLucia et al., Respondents.
[723 NYS2d 769]

Opinion:
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated May 22, 2000, which granted the defendants' motion for summary-judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs' evidence submitted in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment demonstrated that the alleged defect, a height differential between the grass and the sidewalk abutting the defendants' property, was readily observable by the reasonable use of the injured plaintiff's senses (see, Canetti v AMCI, Ltd., 281 AD2d 381; Connor v Taylor Rental Ctr., 278 AD2d 270; Speirs v Dick's Clothing & Sporting Goods, 268 AD2d 581; Breem v Long Is. Light. Co., 256 AD2d 294; Wint v Fulton St. Art Gallery, 263 AD2d 541; Binensztok v Marshall Stores, 228 AD2d 534). Accordingly, as the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact, the motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.