Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. "[T]here 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" ( Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 977). Rather, a court must look at the "width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the `time, place and circumstance' of the injury" ( Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d at 978, quoting Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY 268, 274 [1952]). Here, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the alleged sidewalk defect was trivial and therefore, not actionable ( see Trumboli v Fifth Ave. Paving, 59 AD3d 706; Boxer v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 52 AD3d 447; Portanova v Kantlis, 39 AD3d 731, 732; Mishaan v Tobias, 32 AD3d 1000; Maxson v Brentwood Union Free School Dist, 31 AD3d 506; Adsmond v City of Poughkeepsie, 283 AD2d 598).