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 defendants submitted evidence sufficient to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the pile of wood which allegedly caused the plaintiff to trip and fall was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous ( see McKinney v Ardee Plaza, LLC, 36 AD3d 868; Leib v Silo Rest, Inc., 26 AD3d 359; Tenenbaum v Best 21 Ltd., 15 AD3d 646; Rosa v Southren, 8 AD3d 648; Mansueto v Worster, 1 AD3d 412; Christopher v New York City Tr. Auth., 300 AD2d 336; Schoen v King Kullen Grocery Co., 296 AD2d 486; Boehme v Edgar Fabrics, 248 AD2d 344). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs' contention that the motion was premature is without merit ( see CPLR 3212 [f]).