Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Kenneth RISER, appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondent (and a third-party action).
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated March 13, 1998, which granted the motion of the defendant, the New York City Housing Authority, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff tripped and fell on the edge of a segment of pavement in the sidewalk of a Brooklyn building owned by the defendant, the New York City Housing Authority. The portion of the pavement upon which the plaintiff tripped was a few inches in length, and was raised, at its highest point, approximately one inch above the adjacent segment of pavement.
Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case, and is properly a question of fact for the jury (see, Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 665 N.Y.S.2d 615, 688 N.E.2d 489; see also, Lopez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 245 A.D.2d 273, 666 N.Y.S.2d 21). However, not every injury allegedly caused by an elevated sidewalk slab need be submitted to a jury, and a trivial defect on a walkway, not constituting a trap or nuisance, as a consequence of which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his toes, or trip on a raised projection, is not actionable (see, Trincere v. County of Suffolk, supra, at 977, 665 N.Y.S.2d 615, 688 N.E.2d 489; see also, Marinaccio v. LeChambord Rest., 246 A.D.2d 514, 667 N.Y.S.2d 395). Scrutiny of the photographs identified by the plaintiff as accurately reflecting the condition of the sidewalk at the time of his fall supports the Supreme Court's conclusion that, as a matter of law, the alleged defect, which did not have any of the characteristics of a trap or snare, was too trivial to be actionable (see, Perrotta v. Jamal, 245 A.D.2d 357, 666 N.Y.S.2d 436; Lopez v. New York City Hous. Auth., supra; Guerrieri v. Summa, 193 A.D.2d 647, 598 N.Y.S.2d 4). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 19, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)