You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF...

DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS TRIVIAL, THEREFORE THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant did not meet its prima facie burden to demonstrate the crack in a concrete floor was trivial in this slip and fall case. Therefore the burden never shifted to plaintiff to raise a question of fact. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

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 … . 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” … .

“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” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, it failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged defective condition was trivial as a matter of law and therefore not actionable … . Cortes v Taravella Family Trust, 2018 NY Slip Op 01301, Second Dept 2-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS TRIVIAL, THEREFORE THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (TRIVIAL DEFECT,  DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS TRIVIAL, THEREFORE THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS TRIVIAL, THEREFORE THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Defendant’s Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law, Made Prior to the Close of Plaintiff’s Case, Was Premature and Should Not Have Been Granted Irrespective of the Improbability of Plaintiff’s Ultimate Success
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WARRANTED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Failure to Follow Statutory Risk-Level-Determination Procedure Violated Defendant’s Due Process Rights
PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT RAN A RED LIGHT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Not Entitled to Summary Judgment—Plaintiff Could Not Demonstrate Plaintiff’s Interpretation of the Contract Was the Only Reasonable Interpretation (Rendering the Contract Ambiguous)
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE CHILD’S HEARSAY STATEMENTS CLAIMING HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE STOMACH WERE NOT CORROBORATED AND THEREFORE COULD NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF NEGLECT BY THE INFLICTION OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT MOVED ITS OFFICE AND FAILED TO INFORM THE SECRETARY OF STATE (AND THEREFORE DID NOT RECEIVE THE SUMMONS) WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT TO ALLOW IT TO DEFEND AN ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 317, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (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

EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY... PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL, DEFENDANT’S...