| Shiles v Carillon Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., LLC |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 06820 [54 AD3d 746] |
| September 9, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Susan M. Shiles et al., Appellants, v Carillon Nursing andRehabilitation Center, LLC, et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Fumuso, Kelly, DeVerna, Snyder, Swart & Farrell, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Scott G.Christesen of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), dated August 23, 2007, which granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants established, as a matter of law, that the alleged defect in the sidewalk wastrivial and nonactionable and did not possess the characteristics of a trap or nuisance (seeTrincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Hecht v City of New York, 60NY2d 57 [1983]; Morris v GreenburghCent. School Dist. No. 7, 5 AD3d 567 [2004]; DiNapoli v Huntington Hosp.,303 AD2d 359 [2003]; Hymanson v A.L.L. Assoc., 300 AD2d 358 [2002]; Riser vNew York City Hous. Auth., 260 AD2d 564 [1999]). Although the injured plaintiff, in herdeposition testimony, described the alleged elevation differential as two inches, photographs ofthe sidewalk, which she confirmed fairly and accurately represented the accident site, indicatethat the elevation differential was slight (see Hawkins v Carter Community Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 40 AD3d812 [2007]; Dick v Gap, Inc.,16 AD3d 615 [2005]). Further, the injured plaintiff's testimony established that the incidentoccurred during daylight hours on a clear day with nothing obstructing her view. Afterconsidering the height and width of the defect, as well as the time, place, and circumstances ofthe injury, the record supports a finding that the alleged defect did [*2]not have the characteristics of a trap or snare (see Trincere vCounty of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triableissue of fact.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Carni,JJ., concur.