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
DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH A JUROR CONCERNING POSSIBLE DISQUALIFICATION WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER REQUESTED AND WAS ENTITLED TO AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANT TO HELP PREPARE A DEFENSE; DETERMINATION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).
Owner of Restaurant Not Liable for Parking-Lot Assault on Plaintiff by Another Patron
COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; THE PROSECUTION WAS NOT STARTED UNTIL 22 MONTHS AFTER THE INCIDENT; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON PAINTED AREAS OF A CROSS-WALK IN DEFENDANT’S PARKING LOT; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PAINTED AREAS WERE SLIPPERY WHEN WET BECAUSE SAND HAD NOT BEEN ADDED TO THE PAINT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RENEW A MOTION FOR MORE TIME TO CONDUCT AN IME SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Relation-Back Doctrine (Allowing Service of an Otherwise Time-Barred Amended Complaint) Explained
FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER PROTECTION.

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

Defendant Not Entitled to Dismissal of Complaint On Ground that Condition of... Setback Dimensions Drawn on Subdivision Map Not Reflected in Documents in Defendants’...