Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A landowner has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe manner ( see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233). However, he or she has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition, which is not inherently dangerous as a matter of law ( see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48). Here, the defendant established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the condition complained of was open and obvious, known to the injured plaintiff, and not inherently dangerous ( see Errett v Great Neck Park Dist., 40 AD3d 1029; Meagher-Cox v Winarski, 32 AD3d 379; Capozzi v Huhne, 14 AD3d 474). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.