You are here: / / ONE INCH GAP BETWEEN SIDEWALK SLABS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT...

ONE INCH GAP BETWEEN SIDEWALK SLABS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a one-inch gap between sidewalk slabs was a non-actionable trivial defect:

Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another depends on the facts of each case and is a question of fact for the jury… . However, 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 … . “A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses. Only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact” … .

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” … . There is no “minimal dimension test” or “per se rule” that the condition must be of a certain 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” … .

Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment, including the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and photographs of the accident site, was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that, given the characteristics of the defect and the surrounding circumstances, the gap at issue was trivial, and therefore, not actionable … .  Melia v 50 Ct. St. Assoc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06176, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, ONE INCH GAP BETWEEN SIDEWALK SLABS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, ONE INCH GAP BETWEEN SIDEWALK SLABS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, TRIVIAL DEFECT, ONE INCH GAP BETWEEN SIDEWALK SLABS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, ONE INCH GAP BETWEEN SIDEWALK SLABS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT))/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, ONE INCH GAP BETWEEN SIDEWALK SLABS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, ONE INCH GAP BETWEEN SIDEWALK SLABS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE PETITION SIGNATURES WERE GATHERED BEFORE THE DEADLINE SET BY THE COVID-19-RELATED EXECUTIVE ORDER BUT THE SIGNATURES WERE WITNESSED AFTER THE DEADLINE; THE SIGNATURES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NORMAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HORSEBACK RIDING WERE NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASED BY THE RIDING INSTRUCTOR REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
SCHOOL EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA), NO NEED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; DENIAL OF MEDICAL LEAVE DID NOT HAVE RES JUDICATA OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).
SIGNATORY TO AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE CANNOT AVOID ARBITRATION SIMPLY BECAUSE PARTIES ENTWINED IN THE PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT SIGNATORIES (SECOND DEPT).
APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE CONSIDERED DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FROM THE INITIAL DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL INTO A PIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
​IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, A REFEREE’S REPORT BASED UPON UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
Town Board Should Not Have Considered the Environmental Impact of Only One Small Part of a Revitalization Project, as Opposed to the Entire Revitalization Project, without Explaining the Reasons for Limiting Its Review In Accordance with the Requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
Bar Patron Was Beaten to Death by Other Patrons—Defendants (Bar and Premises Owners) Were Unable to Demonstrate the Attack Was Not Foreseeable and their Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Attack—Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion Properly Denied

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

PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT... QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT THE SCHOOL’S KNOWLEDGE OF A STUDENT’S...