An issue of fact exists as to whether the alleged hole in the curb separating the walkway of defendant's mall from its parking lot constituted a tripping hazard. Such issue is raised by evidence, including the affidavit of an engineer, that the dimensions of the hole, painted over in a manner that made it difficult to detect and located in a poorly lit area where people would be looking straight ahead into the parking lot for their car, created a hazard (see, Argenio v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 277 A.D.2d 165).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.