You are here: / / Slip and Fall Action Based On “Trivial Defect” Dismissed

Slip and Fall Action Based On “Trivial Defect” Dismissed

In affirming the dismissal of a personal injury action in which the plaintiff alleged she fell when she stepped on a one-inch wide and one-half-inch deep hole on the edge of a step, the Second Department wrote:

A property owner may not be held liable for trivial defects, not constituting a trap or nuisance, over which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or her toes, or trip … . In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the “width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury” … .  *  *  * The plaintiff testified at her deposition that the semi-circular hole was one inch in diameter, half an inch deep, and located at the edge of the step. She used the staircase all the time, and she never had a problem traversing the area prior to the accident. Under the circumstances presented here, the alleged defect did not possess the characteristics of a trap or nuisance, and was trivial and, therefore, not actionable … . Maciaszek v Sloninski, 2013 NY Slip Op 02722, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

You might also like
EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1180 (d) (SPEEDING) WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; THE POLICE OFFICER DESCRIBED AN INCIDENT ON A DIFFERENT DATE AT THE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Court Should Not Have Dismissed for “Neglect to Proceed”—Criteria Explained
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN INADEQUATELY PROTECTED HOLE IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WHEN HE (APPARENTLY) WAS DOING WORK ON BEHALF OF HIS EMPLOYER, APPARENTLY A TENANT IN THE BUILDING; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER; BUT PLAINTIFF PRESENTED NO PROOF HIS EMPLOYER HAD ASSUMED THE DUTIES OF AN AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR SUPERVISION OF HIS WORK, THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT THE INSURER WAS OBLIGATED TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS (ALLEGEDLY) MISALIGNED ELEVATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MAINTENANCE COMPANY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER THAT SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT CREATED OR EXACERBATED THE ICE CONDITION IN THE PARKING LOT AND WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Scientific Expert Opinion Need Not Be Based Upon Textual Authority City Failed to Affirmatively Prove It Did Not Have Notice of Dangerous Cond...