Defendant's argument that the crack was trivial as a matter of law was properly rejected by the motion court on the basis of the photographs submitted by defendant depicting a lengthy irregularity in the cement that might have been capable of catching plaintiffs sandal ( see Jacobsen v Krumholz, 41 AD3d 128, 128-129, citing Argenio v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 277 AD2d 165, 166; see also Nin v Bernard, 257 AD2d 417, 418 [defendant's expert's statement that "`it was impossible for all but the sharpest heel or toe to fall within the depression' hardly constitutes a conclusive refutation of plaintiffs case"]). "[E]ven a trivial defect can sometimes have the characteristics of a snare or a trap" ( Herrera v City of New York, 262 AD2d 120, 120).