| Sawicki v Conklin Realty Co., LLC |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03163 [94 AD3d 1083] |
| April 24, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Barbara Maciejewska Sawicki et al., Appellants, v ConklinRealty Co., LLC, Respondent. |
—[*1] Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Harry Steinberg of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sher, J.), dated January 11, 2011, which granted thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs allege that the plaintiff Barbara Maciejewska Sawicki was injured as a result ofstumbling on the plastic edging of a stairway landing of the apartment building where she lived,which was owned by the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint, relying upon, among other things, the plaintiffs' deposition testimony and photographswhich the plaintiffs testified accurately depicted the condition of the plastic edging at the time ofthe accident. The defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw by demonstrating that the alleged defect, which did not have any of the characteristics of atrap or snare, was trivial and, therefore, not actionable (see Trincere v County of Suffolk,90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Schenpanski vPromise Deli, Inc., 88 AD3d 982 [2011]; Milewski v Washington Mut., Inc., 88 AD3d 853 [2011]; Grosskopf v 8320 Parkway TowersCorp., 88 AD3d 765 [2011]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue offact as to whether the alleged defect was trivial as a matter of law (see Levy v Kung Sit Huie, 54 AD3d731 [2008]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.Balkin, J.P., Belen, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.