| Mayo v Santis |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04835 [74 AD3d 470] |
| June 8, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Birgit Mayo, Respondent, v George T. Santis et al.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Morton Povman, P.C., Forest Hills (Ricardo Rengifo of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered on or aboutNovember 17, 2009, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs.
In exercising its function of issue-finding rather than issue-determination (see Insurance Corp. of N.Y. v Central Mut.Ins. Co., 47 AD3d 469, 472 [2008]), the motion court properly determined thatphotographs of defendants' stair step, upon which plaintiff tripped and fell, demonstrated notonly the quarter-inch rise at the edge of the step where plaintiff testified she tripped, but also theapproximately 12 inches of missing bullnose protector and an exposed nail in the middle of thestep. Based on these photographs, a jury could also reasonably conclude that this step was moreworn than the steps beneath it and was surfaced with slippery linoleum. This presents a questionof fact as to whether the condition of the step constituted a defect that—despite itstriviality (see Argenio v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 277 AD2d 165, 166[2000])—nonetheless had the characteristics of a trap or a snare (see Rivera v 2300X-tra Wholesalers, 239 AD2d 268 [1997]).
We have considered defendants' other contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and RomÁn, JJ.