In W* v. M* U* 101 LLC, the plaintiff asserted a personal injury claim arising from a trip-and-fall on a public sidewalk. The plaintiff, W, sought damages after she tripped over the raised edge of a cellar door embedded in the sidewalk. The New York County Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, T* Dragon of * Ave, Inc., dismissing the case. But the Appellate Division, First Department, ended up reversing that decision.
The central issue was whether the defect in the sidewalk was "trivial" and therefore not actionable. Under New York law, a defendant seeking dismissal on the grounds of triviality must demonstrate that the defect is physically insignificant and does not pose an increased risk due to its characteristics or surrounding circumstances. While there is no strict minimum dimension test for determining whether a defect is actionable, courts require evidence, such as measurements and contextual details, to establish that a defect is trivial as a matter of law.
In this case, the plaintiff provided photographs showing a raised cellar door that appeared to present a non-trivial hazard. Additionally, testimony from the principal of M* U* 101 LLC indicated that the surface differential between the sidewalk and the cellar door was approximately one inch. The Court of Appeals has previously held that summary judgment should not be granted when the dimensions of an alleged defect are unknown or when photographic evidence is inconclusive. Since T* Dragon failed to provide precise measurements of the defect, the court ruled that it had not met its burden of proving the defect's triviality.
The AD1 also noted that summary judgment should not have been granted to M* U* 101 LLC, which had not separately moved for such relief. By reversing the lower court’s decision, the Appellate Division allowed W*’s claims to proceed, emphasizing the importance of factual evidence in determining whether a sidewalk defect constitutes a legal hazard. The ruling underscores the principle that property owners and tenants must ensure that sidewalk conditions do not pose unreasonable risks to pedestrians.
The defendants clearly failed to watch their step there ......
# # #
DECISION