You are here: / / WATER CAP IN A SIDEWALK WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT, SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY...

WATER CAP IN A SIDEWALK WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT, SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that a quarter to half inch depression where a water cap was located in a sidewalk was a trivial defect and therefore could not be the basis of a slip and fall action:

… [T]he alleged defect on which plaintiff tripped was trivial and nonactionable as a matter of law based on the characteristics and surrounding circumstances … . The water cap was a quarter to half of an inch below the surface of the sidewalk and the photographic evidence shows no defects in the water cap and surrounding sidewalk. Furthermore, plaintiff never attributed the cause of the accident to any broken or cracked cement or inadequate lighting … . Rivera v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 01698, First Dept 3-12-20

 

You might also like
Relief Granted By Court Went Too Far Beyond Relief Requested
“Special Facts Doctrine” as Applied to Fraud Allegations Explained
“Mere Nervousness” Does Not Justify Police Inquiry/ More than “Mere Nervousness” in this Case
THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SELECTED UNSWORN JUROR COULD NOT RENDER AN IMPARTIAL VERDICT BECAUSE OF AN OUT-OF-TOWN MEETING ON THE DAY BEFORE THE TRIAL WAS LIKELY TO CONCLUDE, THE PEOPLE’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
INSURER’S DUTY TO DEFEND MUST BE DETERMINED SOLELY UPON THE INFORMATION WITHIN THE COMPLAINT, MATTERS OUTSIDE THE COMPLAINT MUST BE RAISED IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR AT TRIAL.
THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE WERE HELPING THE COMPLAINANT PROCURE A U VISA WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE COMPLAINANT TO STAY IN THE US AND APPLY FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE WAS BRADY MATERIAL WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE; U VISAS ARE AVAILABLE TO ALIENS WHO SUFFER ABUSE FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITY; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENTS DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST MAY ONLY CONSIDER THE GROUND FOR THE INITIAL AGENCY DECISION; THE GROUNDS FOR A SUBSEQUENT DECISION ISSUED AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS COMMENCED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR THE METADATA OF THE DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE METADATA WAS NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ IN THE FOIL REQUEST (FIRST 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

DEFENDANT’S PARTICIPATION IN A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DID NOT WAIVE HIS... DEFENDANT WAS ALONE IN HIS CAR ARGUING WITH SOMEONE ON HIS PHONE WHEN THE POLICE...