*7 To establish a prima facie case of negligence under New York law, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a cognizable duty of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the plaintiff suffered damage as the proximate result of that breach.” See
Stagl v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 52 F.3d 463, 467 (2d Cir.1995) (citing Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027, 499 N.Y.S.2d 392, 489 N.E.2d 1294 (1985)). Property owners have a duty to provide reasonably safe premises whenever the general public is invited onto the property. See
Michalski v. Home Depot, Inc., 225 F.3d 113, 117 (2d Cir.2000); Peralta v. Henriquez, 100 N.Y.2d 139, 143, 760 N.Y.S.2d 741, 790 N.E.2d 1170 (2003). However, a property owner generally need not protect or warn customers against risks posed by conditions that are open and obvious and, as a matter of law, not inherently dangerous. See
Clunis v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., No. 10 Civ. 6063(JBW), 2011 WL 5825787, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov.17, 2011); Schulman v. Old Navy/The Gap, Inc., 45 A.D.3d 475, 845 N.Y.S.2d 341, 342 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2007). Whether a hazard is open and obvious is typically a question of fact, but a court may resolve this question when the established facts compel the conclusion that the hazard was open and obvious. See
Michalski, 225 F.3d at 121; Schulman, 845 N.Y.S.2d at 342 (reversing and granting summary judgment in favor of store because there was no question that the bracket the shopper tripped over was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous).