You are here: / / Height Differential Between Concrete Slabs in Sidewalk “Trivial” As a M...

Height Differential Between Concrete Slabs in Sidewalk “Trivial” As a Matter of Law

The Second Department determined a defect which caused plaintiff to trip was “trivial” as a matter of law. The defect was a difference in height between two concrete slabs in a sidewalk:

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” … . “[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… . Slattery v Sachen N High Sch, 2014 NY Slip Op 01310, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

You might also like
CLAIMANT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION BASED UPON THE VALUE OF THE LAND BEFORE IT WAS DESIGNATED PROTECTED WETLANDS WHICH COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED (SECOND DEPT)
CPLR 1021 DEFINES THE PROCEDURE FOR SUBSTITUTING A REPRESENTATIVE FOR A DECEASED PARTY; HERE THAT PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED; THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE EXECUTOR WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
THE PAVING CONTRACTOR FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (A LIP OR HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN THE ROAD SURFACE) WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THEREFORE THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT NEGATE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT CONTRACTORS ARE GENERALLY NOT LIABLE TO THIRD PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB PRECLUDING DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Court’s Refusal to Allow Defendant to Inspect His Laptop Computer, Evidence from Which Was Central to the People’s Case, Was Reversible Error
TO CHALLENGE THE BANK’S STANDING TO FORECLOSE THE DEFENDANT MUST ASSERT THE LACK OF STANDING AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; MERELY DENYING THE RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT IS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).
THE CALIFORNIA JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT; THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE UNDERLYING MERITS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERLY REJECTED THE MACHINES AS NONCONFORMING GOODS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT CURE THE NONCONFORMITY, AND DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES AND LOST PROFITS (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Operating a Scaffold for the Benefit of an Enumerated Activity Done by Others... Court Has Common-Law “Interest of Justice” Authority to Modify Its Own Order...