DENYSSENKO v. PLAZA REALTY SERVICES, INC

The photographic evidence of the alleged hazard in defendant's parking lot to which plaintiff attributes her harm, showing a jagged-edged pothole filled with water, does not permit the conclusion that the defect was trivial as a matter of law ( see Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 977). The pictures of the apparently long-standing defect, taken within two weeks of plaintiff's accident, and which plaintiff testified depicted the complained-of hazard as it existed at the time of the accident, were properly considered on the motion and raised a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the defect ( see Karten v. City of New York, 109 A.D.2d 126).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.