You are here: / / Walkway Defect Trivial as a Matter of Law

Walkway Defect Trivial as a Matter of Law

In finding a one-half inch defect in a walkway was trivial as a matter of law (in a slip and fall case), the Second Department explained the legal principles as follows:

“[W]hether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case’ and is generally a question of fact for the jury” … . However, a property owner may not be held liable in damages 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'” … . “[T]here is no minimal dimension test’ or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” … . “Photographs which fairly and accurately represent the accident site may be used to establish that a defect is trivial and not actionable” … .  Schiller v St Francis Hosp Roslyn NY, 2013 NY Slip Op 05521, Second Dept 7-31-13

 

You might also like
Cooperative Board’s Denial of Plaintiff’s Application to Sell His Shares in the Cooperative Was Not Tainted by Discriminatory Considerations—Denial Protected by the Business Judgment Rule
Because Defendant Was Negligent As a Matter of Law (Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law), the Verdict In Favor of the Defendant Was Properly Set Aside
No “Civil Conspiracy” Tort in New York; However Conspiracy-Theory Can Link Participants to Underlying Substantive Tort
CONVERSION THEORY DOES NOT APPLY TO REAL ESTATE OR INTANGIBLE PROPERTY.
Board of Commissioner’s Rejection of Hearing Officer’s Award of Supplemental Benefits Was Supported by Substantial Evidence—“Substantial Evidence” Defined and Review Criteria Explained
ABSENCE OF A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP IS NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINATIVE IN AN ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER A PARTY IS A MEMBER OF A HOUSEHOLD FOR PURPOSES OF JURISDICTION OVER A FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE A FINDING RESPONDENT WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE HOUSEHOLD WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Plaintiff was Special Employee​
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS; DEFENDANT AVERRED HIS ATTORNEY DIDN’T REQUEST THE SEARCH WARRANT DOCUMENTS, DIDN’T MAKE A SUPPRESSION MOTION, AND DIDN’T INFORM HIM THAT THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANTS COULD BE CONTESTED (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

Lawsuit Alleging Lehman Brothers’ Substitution of Toxic Securities for High... Verdict Set Aside as Irreconcilably Inconsistent (Jury Found Defective Sidewalk...