You are here: / / Criteria for “Trivial Defect” and “Open and Obvious”...

Criteria for “Trivial Defect” and “Open and Obvious” Explained

The Second Department determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case was properly denied.  The plaintiff tripped over a lock on sidewalk-level doors adjacent to the defendants’ property (the defendants were the property owner and the tenant in possession).  The defendants unsuccessfully argued the defect was trivial and open and obvious.  The court summarized the relevant law:

An owner or tenant in possession of realty owes a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition … . “[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, liability will not be imposed for trivial defects which do not constitute a trap or nuisance … . “In determining whether a defect is trivial as a matter of law, a 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” … .

While a possessor of real property has a duty to maintain that property in a reasonably safe condition …, there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition, which as a matter of law is not inherently dangerous … . “Whether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances” … . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … .  Doughim v M & US Prop Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05623, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

You might also like
BANK’S PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT INSUFFICIENT AT BOTH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TRIAL STAGES IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
IN AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF REASONABLY RELIED ON THE ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION IS USUALLY A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH CANNOT BE RESOLVED IN A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
No Negligence In School District’s, School’s and Attending Nurse’s Care of Child Who Died After Suffering an Allergic Reaction in School
THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED ON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
IF THE ORIGINAL PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FAILS TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT A MAILING IN COMPLIANCE WITH CPLR 308(2) WAS DONE, THE OMISSION CANNOT BE CURED BY AMENDMENT; THE AMENDED AFFIDAVIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE MOUND OF SNOW AND ICE WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL, WHICH ORDINARILY WOULD SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CITY; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION BY PLOWING, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).
TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS A NULLITY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD DIED AND NO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATES HAD BEEN APPOINTED OR NAMED PURSUANT TO THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT OR THE CPLR (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

Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (SUM) Provision Triggered When... Plaintiff Should Have Been Allowed to Add Doctor to Medical Malpractice Action...