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
ACTION AGAINST GAS COMPANY FOR CONTAMINATION OF REAL PROPERTY ACCRUED WHEN INJURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED AND WAS TIME BARRED; ACTION FOR NUISANCE RELATING TO REMEDIATION EFFORTS, HOWEVER, IS SUBJECT TO A DIFFERENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROVISION AND WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
Effect of Witness’ Invocation of Fifth Amendment Privilege on Fairness Explained
DEFENDANT’S DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED AT HIGH SPEEDS AND IGNORING TRAFFIC LIGHTS, RESULTING IN AN INTERSECTION COLLISION WHICH KILLED THE OTHER DRIVER, SUPPORTED THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION.
PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTE WAS LOST (PURSUANT TO THE UCC) AND DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CORRECTION OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMISES IN THE MORTGAGE BASED UPON MUTUAL MISTAKE (SECOND DEPT).
THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION FOR COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION UNDER CPLR 205(A) IS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THE PRIOR ACTION WAS VOLUNTARILY DISCONTINUED; HERE THE CPLR 205(A) EXTENSION WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR A STATE ACTION WHICH PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO COMMENCE AFTER VOLUNTARILY DISCONTINUING A SIMILAR FEDERAL ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF HOMEOWNERS’ ACTION AGAINST THE INSURER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND NEGLIGENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF ACKNOWLEDGED THE HOME WAS VACANT WHEN THE POLICY WAS PURCHASED AND AT THE TIME OF THE FIRE AND THE POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR VACANT PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
UPON THE PRIOR APPEAL, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT MADE A FINDING THAT RESPONDENT SUFFERED FROM SEXUAL SADISM DISORDER AND REMITTED THE MATTER; SUPREME COURT IGNORED THE FINDING AND HELD A NEW NONJURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE THE SECOND DEPARTMENT’S MANDATE (SECOND DEPT).​
FAILURE TO INCLUDE YEAR IN THE DATES OF THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION.

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’...