Trincere v. County of Suffolk
Cases that cite this one
546 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Habecker v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2013)
- Natijehbashem v. United States (District Court, E.D. New York 2011)
- Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp. (N.Y. 2015)
- Tursi v. United States (District Court, E.D. New York 2019)
- Aviles v. Putnam Park Properties LLC (New York Supreme Court 2016)
- Christian v. United States (District Court, E.D. New York 2012)
- Czochanski v. Tishman Speyer Properties, Ltd. (2d Cir. 2002)
- Rene v. Livingston Gardens, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Mammina v. State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Ampong v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2023)
- Haxton v. PL Smithtown, LLC (District Court, E.D. New York 2020)
- Scuteri v. 7318 13th Ave. Corp. (New York Supreme Court 2016)
- Brown v. Heron Flatbush, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Infantino v. Wells (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Wang v. Park-81st Corp. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Brown v. Villarba (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Snyder v. AFCO Avports Mgt., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Abreu v. Pursuit Realty Group, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- De Costa v. S.K.I. Realty, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- Morris v. Buffalo Gen. Health Sys. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Cabezas v. Ramos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Easley v. U Haul (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Pitt v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Fasone v. Northside Properties Management Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Adler v. QPI-VIII, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
In the daylight hours of March 1991, plaintiff walked to the north side entrance of the H. Lee Dennison Building in Hauppauge, New York. She ascended the steps from the parking lot to a plaza area where she stumbled and fell over a cement slab that was elevated at an angle "a little over a half-inch above the surrounding paving slabs.” The issue on this appeal is whether a defect consisting of a one-half inch elevation of a cement slab in the plaza area of a municipal building is nonactionable as a matter of law. We hold there is no "minimal dimension test” or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable. However, we conclude that the Appellate Division properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim after its examination of all the facts and circumstances presented, including the dimension of the defect at issue.
There is no rule that municipal liability, in a case involving minor defects in the pavement, "turns upon whether the hole or depression, causing the pedestrian to fall, is four inches — or any other number of inches — in depth” (Loughran v City of New York, 298 NY 320, 321-322; Wilson v Jaybro Realty & Dev. Co., 289 NY 410, 412). Instead, 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” (Guerrieri v Summa, 193 AD2d 647 [citations omitted]). Of course, in some instances, the trivial nature of the defect may loom larger than another element. Not every injury allegedly caused by an elevated brick or slab need be submitted to a jury (see, e.g., Hecht v City of New York, 60 NY2d 57, 61 [claim involving trivial gap between two flagstones of the sidewalk was properly dismissed]). However, a mechanistic disposition of *978 a case based exclusively on the dimension of the sidewalk defect is unacceptable. After examination 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 (Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY 268, 274), the court correctly concluded that no issue of fact was presented. In view of this disposition, we need not reach appellant’s remaining arguments.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.