You are here: / / A METAL PROTRUSION IN A PARKING LOT MEASURING AN INCH OR LESS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE...
,

A METAL PROTRUSION IN A PARKING LOT MEASURING AN INCH OR LESS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a metal protrusion of an inch or less in a parking lot constituted a trivial defect which was not actionable in this slip and fall case:

In determining whether a defect is trivial, courts “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 a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” … . However, a defendant “may not be cast in damages for negligent maintenance by reason of trivial defects on a walkway, not constituting a trap or nuisance, as a consequence of which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his toes, or trip over a raised projection” … .

The defendants presented evidence that the alleged defect was an inch or less in size, that the incident occurred in the daytime hours under clear conditions, and that the area immediately surrounding the alleged defect was clear of debris and not dangerous or trap-like. Easley v U Haul, 2018 NY Slip Op 08008, Second Dept 11-21-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, A METAL PROTRUSION IN A PARKING LOT MEASURING AN INCH OR LESS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (A METAL PROTRUSION IN A PARKING LOT MEASURING AN INCH OR LESS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, TRIVIAL DEFECT, A METAL PROTRUSION IN A PARKING LOT MEASURING AN INCH OR LESS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, A METAL PROTRUSION IN A PARKING LOT MEASURING AN INCH OR LESS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
APPLICATION TO ADD HANDGUNS TO PISTOL PERMIT PROPERLY DENIED BASED UPON PETITIONER’S CRIMINAL HISTORY, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IS THE PROPER PROCEEDING IN WHICH TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE.
PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SOUGHT TO ADD TWO PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANTS (PA’S) AS DEFENDANTS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS WERE THE PA’S EMPLOYERS OR SUPERVISORS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PA’S HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTION; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
No Need for Proof of Agent’s Authority—Five-Day Notice Demanding Rent Valid
THE STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED IN AN ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE CASE WAS NOT MET IN THIS MURDER PROSECUTION; CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THREE-FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN ROOF LEVELS WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NOTICE BY PROOF WHICH MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO THE CORRECT ADDRESS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INITIAL MOTION PAPERS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT PART OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; IN ADDTIION, THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S CONTRACT WITH THE TOWN TO MAINTAIN STREET LIGHTS DID NOT CREATE A DUTY OWED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE PLAINTIFF, A PEDESTRIAN STRUCK BY A CAR WHO ALLEGED A STREET LIGHT WAS NOT WORKING; THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT “LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM;” IT MERELY FAILED “TO ACT AS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOOD” WHICH DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO A NONPARTY (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

WHETHER A CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, AN... LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT GRANTING DEFENDANTS’...