Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
A landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner ( see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233). However, it has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which is not inherently dangerous as a matter of law ( see Fitzgerald v Sears, Roebuck Co., 17 AD3d 522; Orlando v Audax Constr. Corp., 14 AD3d 500; Capozzi v Huhne, 14 AD3d 474; Jang Hee Lee v Sung Whun Oh, 3 AD3d 473; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48). The defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the display racks with which the plaintiffs shopping cart collided were open and obvious, known to her, and not inherently dangerous ( see Mastellone v City of New York, 29 AD3d 540; Lamia v Federated Dept. Stores, 263 AD2d 498; Werner v Saks Fifth Ave., 266 AD2d 390; Sewer v Fat Albert's Warehouse, 235 AD2d 414). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.