Guerrieri v. Summa

181 Citing cases

  1. ZIZZO v. PORT AUTH. OF NY N.J.

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 51090 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

    "Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury." ( Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 977 citing Guerrieri v. Summa, 193 AD2d 647 [2nd Dept 1993].) "To impose liability upon a defendant in a trip-and-fall action, there must be evidence that a dangerous or defective condition existed, and that the defendants either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it."

  2. Espriel v. Starbucks Corp.

    20 Civ. 10881 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2023)

    In support of this argument, however, plaintiff merely cites to two New York state cases, which apply a summary judgment standard that differs from the standard used in federal court. See id. (citing Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 977 (1997), Guerrieri v. Summa, 193 A.D.2d 647, 647 (2d Dep't 1993)); Ghal, 2019 WL 1745704, at *3 (discussing summary judgment standard). In any event, the courts in both cases clarified that not all slip-and-fall cases “need be submitted to a jury,” Trincere, 90 N.Y.2d at 977, and in Guerrieri, the court held that “the elevated metal stripe” at issue “did not constitute an actionable defect or a dangerous condition.”

  3. Scott v. U.S.

    04 Civ. 4107 (MBM) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2006)

    New York courts recognize that "the owner of a public passageway 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." Guerrieri v. Summa, 193 A.D.2d 647, 647, 598 N.Y.S.2d 4 (2nd Dep't 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a walkway defect is trivial, the court must consider "the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity, and appearance of the defect as well as the time, place, and circumstances of the injury."

  4. Scott v. U.S.

    No. 04 Civ. 4107(MBM) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2006)   Cited 3 times
    Granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint where the plaintiff tripped and fell over a height differential of one inch or less between sidewalk segments outside of a post office and the alleged defect was not irregular, hidden from view, or otherwise compounded by time, place, or circumstances of the accident

    New York courts recognize that "the owner of a public passageway 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." Guerrieri v. Summa, 193 A.D.2d 647, 647, 598 N.Y.S.2d 4 (2nd Dep't 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a walkway defect is trivial, the court must consider "the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity, and appearance of the defect as well as the time, place, and circumstances of the injury."

  5. Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp.

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 7578 (N.Y. 2015)   Cited 339 times
    In Hutchinson, the Court of Appeals determined that the defendants in one of the cases at issue, who had moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, failed to make a prima facie showing that a defect was trivial where photographs of the defect were "indistinct" and the defendants presented no evidence regarding the measurements of the defect (Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 N.Y.3d at 82–83, 19 N.Y.S.3d 802, 41 N.E.3d 766).

    Trincere thus recognizes the doctrine that a defect alleged to have caused injury to a pedestrian may be trivial as a matter of law, but requires a holding of triviality to be based on all the specific facts and circumstances of the case, not size alone. In our opinion, we cited Guerrieri v. Summa, 193 A.D.2d 647, 598 N.Y.S.2d 4 (2d Dept.1993), which expressed the trivial defect doctrine as the principle that 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’ ” (id. at 647, 598 N.Y.S.2d 4, quoting Liebl v. Metropolitan Jockey Club, 10 A.D.2d 1006, 1006, 204 N.Y.S.2d 670 [2d Dept.1960], rearg. denied 11 A.D.2d 946, 206 N.Y.S.2d 552 [2d Dept.1960] ; see also e.g. Trionfero v. Vanderhorn, 6 A.D.3d 903, 903–904, 774 N.Y.S.2d 612 [3d Dept.2004] ; Squires v. County of Orleans, 284 A.D.2d 990, 990, 726 N.Y.S.2d 536 [4th Dept.2001] ; Morales v. Riverbay Corp., 226 A.D.2d 271, 271, 641 N.Y.S.2d 276 [1st Dept.1996] ).

  6. Marinaccio v. LeChambord Restaurant

    246 A.D.2d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 33 times
    Upholding grant of summary judgment because photographs supported Supreme Court's conclusion that alleged defect was too trivial to be actionable

    We now affirm. Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury (see, Guerrieri v. Summa, 193 A.D.2d 647). However, a property owner may not be held liable in damages for "`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'" (Guerrieri v. Summa, 193 A.D.2d 647, supra, quoting Liebl v. Metropolitan Jockey Club, 10 A.D.2d 1006; see also, Hecht v. City of New York, 89 A.D.2d 524, mod on other grounds 60 N.Y.2d 57; Mascaro v. State of New York, 46 A.D.2d 941, affd 38 N.Y.2d 870; Levine v. Macy Co., 20 A.D.2d 761).

  7. Trincere v. County of Suffolk

    232 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 13 times

    We agree. The caselaw reflects a prevailing view to the effect that "differences in elevation of about one inch, without more, * * * [are] nonactionable" ( Morales v Riverbay Corp. 226 AD2d 271, citing Hecht v City of New York, 89 AD2d 524, mod on other grounds 60 NY2d 57; see also, Mascaro v State of New York, 46 AD2d 941, affd 38 NY2d 870; Allen v Carr, 28 AD2d 155, affd 22 NY2d 924; see also, Guerrieri v Summa, 193 AD2d 647; Scally v State of New York, 26 AD2d 606, affd 24 NY2d 747; Keirstead v City of New York, 24 AD2d 486, affd 17 NY2d 535; Fleming v Fifth Ave. Coach Lines, 23 AD2d 726; Brannigan v City of Plattsburgh, 3 AD2d 637; cf, Evans v Pyramid Co., 184 AD2d 960). These cases also reflect the reality that municipal entities cannot possibly be expected to be on constructive notice of defects which are so trivial ( see, Curd v City of New York, 209 AD2d 574; Hecht v City of New York, supra).

  8. Rosiello v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 32144 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury (see Guierrieri v. Summa, 193 A.D.2d 647 [2nd Dept 1993]). However, a property owner may not be held liable in damages for "trivial defects on a walkway, not constituting a trap or nuisance, as a consequence of which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his toe or trip over a raised projection" (see Guierrieri v. Summa, 193 A.D.2d 647, quoting Liebl v. Metropolitan Jockey Club, 10 A.D.2d 1006 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Accordingly, not every trip and fall on a sidewalk defect gets submitted to a jury (see Riser v. New York City Housing Auth., 260 A.D.2d 564 [2nd Dept. 1999]).

  9. Moses v. The City of New York

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 32172 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury (see Guierrieri v. Summa, 193 A.D.2d 647 [2nd Dept 1993]). However, a property owner may not be held liable in damages for "trivial defects on a walkway, not constituting a trap or nuisance, as a consequence of which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his toe or trip over a raised projection" (see Guierrieri v. Summa, 193 A.D.2d 647, quoting Liebl v. Metropolitan Jockey Club, 10 A.D.2d 1006 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

  10. Restivo v. Pak Slope Enters.

    2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 33082 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

    Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury (see, Guerrieri v Summa, 193 AD2d 647). However, a property owner may not be held liable in damages for " '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' " (Guerrieri v Summa, 193 AD2d 647, supra, quoting Liebl v Metropolitan Jockey Club, 10 AD2d 1006; see also, Hecht v City of New York, 89 AD2d 524, mod on other grounds 60 NY2d 57; Mascaro v State of New York, 46 AD2d 941, affd 38 NY2d 870; Levine v Macy & Co., 20 AD2d 761); quoting, Marinaccio v. LeChambord Rest., 246 AD2d 514, 515, 667 NYS2d 395 (1998).