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
STATEMENTS MADE BY THE COMPLAINANT TO POLICE OFFICERS HOURS AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT BREACHED THE CONTRACT TO CREATE A WEBSITE FOR PLAINTIFF, JUDGMENT AFTER A NON-JURY TRIAL REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
No Notice of Defect Needed Where Municipality Affirmatively Created It.
THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS SENT TO DEFENDANT IN AN ENVELOPE WHICH INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES, A VIOLATION OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
Video Recording of Independent Medical Exam (IME) Should Be Disclosed Prior to Trial; Court’s Permission to Record IME Is Required; Request for Another IME by a Different Doctor Should Have Been Granted
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT ON WHICH PLAINTIFF’S SON WAS INJURED, ACCORDING TO EXPERT EVIDENCE, WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS, WAS PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND WAS NONHAZARDOUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (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;...