MENENDEZ v. DOBRA

The motion court properly considered all factors relevant to assessing the magnitude of the hazard posed by the complained of defect (see Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976) and properly concluded that the defect, which appears from the record to have been shallow and gently graded and to have had none of the characteristics of a trap or snare, was not actionable (see Santiago v. United Artists Communications, 263 A.D.2d 407, 408;Figueroa v. Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 247 A.D.2d 210). We note in this connection the absence of evidence indicating that the defect, although apparently trivial, nonetheless posed a significant hazard by reason of its location or adverse weather or lighting conditions (cf. McKenzie v. Crossroads Arena, 291 A.D.2d 860, 861, lv dismissed 98 N.Y.2d 647; Nin v. Bernard, 257 A.D.2d 417, 418;Tesak v. Marine Midland Bank, 254 A.D.2d 717, 718).

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