Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 N.Y.3d 71 (2015)

When determining whether a property defect is trivial as a matter of law, courts must consider all the facts and circumstances, not just the dimensions of the defect.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals consolidated three slip-and-fall cases to clarify the application of the trivial defect doctrine. The Court held that dismissing a case based solely on the size of a sidewalk or stairway defect is improper. Instead, courts must consider all the facts and circumstances, including the defect’s characteristics, the surrounding environment, and whether the defect presented a hazard. The Court reversed two Appellate Division decisions that had granted summary judgment based solely on the defect’s size and affirmed one decision. The Court emphasized that the trivial defect doctrine should not be applied mechanistically, and a holistic approach is necessary when assessing liability in premises liability cases.

Facts

The three cases involved plaintiffs who tripped and fell on either a metal object protruding from a sidewalk (Hutchinson), a chipped step on a staircase (Zelichenko), or a protrusion on an apartment building staircase (Adler). In Hutchinson, a metal object protruded a quarter of an inch. In Zelichenko, a chip in the nosing of a step tread measured 3.25 inches in width and one-half inch in depth. In Adler, the photographs depicted a protrusion on a stair, but the dimensions were not recorded. The defendants in each case moved for summary judgment, claiming the defects were trivial and non-actionable as a matter of law.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the defendant in Hutchinson and denied it in Zelichenko and Adler. The Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment in Hutchinson and reversed the denial of summary judgment in Zelichenko and Adler. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal in Zelichenko and Adler and affirmed in Hutchinson.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a sidewalk defect, such as a metal object protruding from the concrete, is trivial as a matter of law, thereby warranting summary judgment.

2. Whether a defect in a stair, such as a chipped stair nosing, is trivial as a matter of law, thereby warranting summary judgment.

3. Whether a defect in a stair, where there were no recorded measurements of the defect, is trivial as a matter of law, thereby warranting summary judgment.

Holding

1. No, because all the circumstances of the defect must be considered.

2. No, because the Appellate Division erroneously concluded as a matter of law that the “chip” was not on the walking surface, and a material triable issue of fact exists.

3. No, because the dimensions of the defect were unknown, and the photographs and descriptions were inconclusive.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on its prior decision in Trincere v. County of Suffolk, which established that there is no