You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether ¾ Inch Height Differential Was “Trivial”...

Question of Fact Whether ¾ Inch Height Differential Was “Trivial”

In a slip and fall case, the Second Department reversed Supreme Court and determined there was a question of fact whether a defect, a ¾” height differential in a walkway, was “trivial:”

“Generally, whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the particular facts of each case, and is properly a question of fact for the jury unless the defect is trivial as a matter of law” … . “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 circumstances of the injury'” … . There is no “minimal dimension test” or per se rule that a defect, in order to be actionable, must be a certain height or depth … .

Here, in support of their motion, the Jamaica Seven defendants submitted evidence, including photographs, which showed that the bricks within the section of the entranceway where the plaintiff tripped were depressed below the adjacent public sidewalk, causing a height differential of at least 3/4 of an inch. This evidence, including the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, was insufficient to demonstrate as a matter of law that the alleged defect was trivial and, therefore, not actionable… . Cardona-Torres v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05870, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE NO LONGER APPLIES TO ANY ACTIONS OTHER THAN THOSE STEMMING FROM ATHLETIC AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.
ALTHOUGH THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION INSPECTED THE VACANT PROPERTY AND MADE PERIODIC REPAIRS, IT WAS NOT A “MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION” SUCH THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED; IN ORDER TO BE DEEMED A “MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION,” THE MORTGAGOR MUST CONSENT TO THE BANK’S POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
FORMAL ADMISSIONS, INFORMAL ADMISSIONS AND JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFINITION OF ‘PARENT’ IS THE SAME FOR PARENTAL ACCESS AND CUSTODY; JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINES PRECLUDED SUPREME COURT’S FINDING THAT FATHER DID NOT HAVE STANDING IN THE CUSTODY MATTER (SECOND DEPT).
DOG-BITE STRICT LIABILITY LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED, DOG-OWNER’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A CITY EMT’S REFUSAL TO OFFER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO HAD COLLAPSED WHILE THE EMT WAS IN THE RESTAURANT 2ND DEPT.
THE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ACTED WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT REQUIRED A HOMEOWNER TO TAKE DOWN A FENCE; HOWEVER THE AUTHORITY FOR THE HEAVY FINE (OVER $35,000) WAS NOT VALID PURSUANT TO THE REAL PROPERTY LAW (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF MOTHER SEEKING TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN IN THIS SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS PROCEEDING (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

Primary Assumption of Risk Precluded Lawsuit Question of Fact Whether City Had Notice of Pothole in Bicycle-Injury Case;...