Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries sustained from a fall after being growled at and chased by a guard dog at defendant's commercial premises. As a landowner, defendant owed a duty to plaintiff to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition, but it failed to make that prima facie showing. Even where a hazardous condition — such as the pile of auto parts that plaintiff fell over — is open and obvious, relieving the landlord of the duty to warn, defendant can still be held liable for failure to maintain safe premises ( Westbrook v. WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5 AD3d 69). There are also questions of fact as to defendant's knowledge and ownership of the dog.