### Rosa v 4114 Realty Group LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 31991(U) June 5, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 519672/2020 Judge: Peter P. Sweeney Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001 (U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

## FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2024 INDEX NO. 519672/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 115 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

1 of 5 SUPREME COURT OF THES ATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS, PART 7~ ·



### ...-------. -----------. --- .---...-·. -- . ___ . ------. ------------· -· ·. ----X t10NICA ROSA, Plaintif'f,.-against4114 REALTY GROUP LLCa d K&B BEAUTY, Defendμn 

### ts,.



# ·------ .--- ..-------------------------. ------------- .. ---- .- .---. ..x IndexNo.:. 519672/2020 Motion Date: 4-15-24 

### Mot. Seq.No.: 4, 

### 5 DECISION/ORDER

The following papers, tv ich ate e-filed with NYCEF as items 46.;98, 101-114, were read 

### on these motions: In this action to recover ,amages for personal injuries, in motion sequence 

### #4, defendant K&B BEAUTYSUPPLY AND DISCOUNT ("K&B'') moves 

### for 

## an order pursuant to CPLR 

### 3

212( a) granting summary

### judg ent 

### and dismissing 

### P lainti

### ff s Camplaint 

### fn its entirety and all cross-claims ofco-defendant, 4114 REALTY 

### GROUP LLC ("4114 Realty''). 

### In motion sequence# 5,.4114 Realtymove~for an Order, pursuant to CPLR.§3212 and 

### §3211: (1) Granting. ' summaryjtidgment on its cross-blaim for cm'itractual indemnification against defendant K&B;

. I . . . {2) Dismissing the plaintiffs. co*1plaint only against 4114 Realt, and 

### {3} For st1ch other and I further relief

### as the 

### Coln't deemspust; proper. and equitable. i I This action atises out of~ trip and fall accident that occurred on June 12. 2020. on a brick I walkway 

### tlu11 was part·ofthc pu?lic sidewalk in front ofthe preinises 

### 4114 Ave11ueD, Brooklyi1, New York. The plaintiff claims 1hatshc was caused to fall to the grotind \vhen her left foot came into contactwith a raised brick. pefendant, 41·14 Realty is the owner ofpremises located··at 4114

. . . . i . . AvenueD anddefendant K&B tas theground~floor·commercial tenant ofthe premises pursuant

. . ! . . . . to a written Lease entered into vfith 4 I 14 Realty. 

### l i The Lease agreemenfbe~weeli the defendants specifically states as follmvs: I i I 60. REPAIRS.T~nant shall makeall repairs to the sidewalkand the de1ni'sed pre~ises a11d where an item is beyond nepair; the Tenant shall repl~ce the same with material, equipment, and labor of first-class qwi~ity, but Tenant shall hot berequiredto perform structural repairs !uniess such structural repairs. are necessitated by 1 

### [* 1]

## FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2024 INDEX NO. 519672/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 115 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

2 of 5 the acts 

### or omissi ns ofthe temmt, its agents, employees or invitees. The 

### lease also contained he 

### frillO'Wirtg indemnification

### provision: 45(8) Teni1nt sha;Lindemnify and save Lan:dlord harri1lcss froni 

### and against .. ,(ii) 

### ~11 claims against Land] ord arising from any accident, 

### injury, 

## cpr damage occurring ontside ofthe 

### demised pteinises; but witl1i1i 

### or aboutthe lands 

### and buildings where 

### the ~ccident, injury o~·. d~mag:

### result or \s, c_lai_med to:l1ave 

### resulted trom an act or on11ss10n 

### ot Tenant. .. Ih1sindemmty and hold harmless covena1}t shall 

### ii'1cludc indernnity from and against any and 

### alL .. suits ....C~)sts and expense$ 

### (i11cluding attqrneys' fees and disbursements) of 

### any kind or nature incun-ed ....



### .. .·the Lease also required hetenaiit to 

### procure ins

### urancc · for the landlordi Paragraph 

### 4 2 provides:


# . I I INSURANCE (Al) 

### Tenm1t shall procure and 

### nrnintain liability ot other casualty iniurancc as may be required under the terms of this lease. , .(B)(1}T 

### ei1a.nt shal

## Latits 

### so Ie cost and expense 

### procure arid maintaii1 throughput the term ofthis 

### lease a comprehensive 

### general liability policy oft in:surance 

### insurin:g Tenant andLandlord 

### against any and all risks and/or liability for prope1iy damage and bodily

. . i ' ' ' lilJUry .,. . 

### i i Ather 

### deposition, the pfaintifftestifred 

### as follows:

. . I ! ; ' Q . Miss Rosa, d~ you 

### know why 

### your left 

### foot .came into contact \vith 

### the brick'? 

# I A.No.
; ' Q . 

### What is your ~ns,ver? I A.No, 

# I I I Q . 

### Gan 

### you descbbe the bri(:k 

### that yourleft fqot qme 

### i11 cqntact ,vith? 

# ! i . I 

### A. 

### It was raise:d. 

# r was 

### raised. Q. 

### Ho\v high wa$.it raised? 

### I A. Itwas loose. 

# Ii didri't see it; Ijt1st 

### fell. ! 2 

### [* 2]

## FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2024 INDEX NO. 519672/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 115 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

3 of 5 

### Q . How do 

### yot1 1

### novv it 

### was loose? A. Because when I 

### we1it back, I 

### saw what happened. Q . 

### Okay. When 1ou 

### went back
-- 1 

### thinkyou said a month later? 

### i A. No "- well, I ,ink

### it was a month 

### because J 

### \Vas sick
-- I 

### was in bed with a 

### brokc1, arm. Q. 

### Butwhcn yo went 

### back,rna'am_, amonthlatet yousaw the specific brick? A. 

### Yes, whete I ell. I 

### I Q . And did you ~ouch 

### it? I I 

### A.No. 

# i Q. 

## So hov.: do 

### yJuk.i10w it

### was loose? ! A I . d i

. t was raise , 

### i i I 

### Q. OK 

### it wasn't 

### \Qo.se, it 

### was raised? ! A. 

### It was raised. 

# i ' I Q . HO\V high

# wab itraised? I 

### A. It was·awav ftom the other 

### bricks.

. . . . ,., ·1 .. ' . . i 

### Q .But do you k~1bw 

### approxiniately ho\\' 

### high in tfieasureinel1ts, how 

### high 

### it was 

### 1jaised? 

### A.No. ' ' i Q . You didn't 

### m~asure 

### it. com:ct? A.No, 

# I ' 

### Ather depositioi1, 

### the pl~intiff circled the bi'ick that 

### she clairris 

### .caused her accid'ent 

### (see

. .. . . ! . NYSCEF 

### # 71). PlaintifftestifiFdtha:t thevveather 

### was ''good" 

### and"stmny" at the:time 

### ofthc 

### accident and that 

### it was 

### n,ot 

### rafolng. When 

### asked ifthere 

### was there ~nythh1g obstructing her I . 

### View 

### ofthe 

### groundjust prior 

### to 

# b1e accident, her 

### answer was ';I 

### don't recall;"

. 

### ' i 

### i 3. 

### [* 3]

## FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2024 INDEX NO. 519672/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 115 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

4 of 5 K&B contends that it is 

### -ntitled to sumi11aryjudgment betause plai11tiffs accident arose out of a structural defect ofthe riublic sidewalk, and undet the lease, 

### it was not obligated to make I . . structmal repairs 

### to the sidewal

# 1 .4114 Realty contends that it is entitled to summaryjudgment because plaintiffs claim 

### is base~ on speculation. 

### 4114 Realty maintains:that plaintiffs .I . . testi1i1ony establishes that her d$.im that a certain brickcaused her to stub her foot, was based

. I solely on her observing the; alle1 1 ed br~ck for the firstti~e one (1 )month after heraccid~nt \Vhen she had to returnto 

### the accident 

### I ocatrnn because she d1 

### d not kno\v what caused her to Jal 

### I. 4114 Realty also contends that the 

## all ged 

### detect was trivialin nature and did nothave the cha:ractei·istics of a trap Or nuisaice. Finally, 4114 Realty contendsthat it is entitled to summary I judgrnentagainst K&B on its clrmfor contractual indemnification pursuant.to paragraph.45B of the lease. 1 

### Discussion: 

### i ' i ! The court will first addr~ss 4114 Realty's motion:. A property o,.vner "ma.Y not 

### be held I . liable for trivial defects, notcon~tituting a trap or nuisance, over which a pedestrian might

. ! . merely stumble, 

### stub his 

### or her ~oes, ot trip"' 

### (Hl'tber 1·.. (:l1

### S 

### Pharnwcy, Inc., 217 A.D.Jd 659, ! . . 

### 659, 

### 190N.Y.S.3d 148; seeAce~-·edo r. 

### CityofYonker,t, 185 A.D.3d 

### 762,763, 

### 125 N.Y.S.3d I. . . 30;2_). "In determining whether

# a! defect is trivial, the court must exani:ine all ofthe facts

. I . presented, ii1cluding the 'width,!depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance ofthe defectalong

. .. l with the time, place, and Circum~taiice 

### ofthe injury"' 

### (Deviva v. Bi.mrbon 5't, Fii1e Food.,· 

### & I Spirit,. 

### 116 A.D.3d 654,655, .98$ 

### N.Y.S.2d295, quoting 

### Trincete v. Counf;v 

### qfSl!ffolk, 

### 90N.Y.2d I . . . . 976, 978, 665 N .Y.S.2d 615, 68~ N.E.2d 489} "'[T]herCis no 'minimal dimerision test' or per 

### se I rule that a defect must

### he of i:i. c~rtain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable''

. . .· . . i. ..· . . . . . .. . .. (Thncere v. Colinty 

### q(Si{ffi>lk. 9.0 N.Y.2d at 977, 665 N .Y.S.2d 615,688 N.E.2d 489; see

. I . .

. I . . . . . . A!aldonctdtJ v. 212I 

### Shore Condpminium. 138 A.D.3d 789, 790,JO N .Y;S.3d 185}. ! ' Here, the photograph th~t plaintiff cla:i1i.1S depicts the condition that caused her accident I (NYSCEF #71) established tha{ the alleged defect in the sidewalk was physically i1isigrtificant. I . . . . . . . . The accident occu1Ted on a suntjy day; artd there is no evidence that anything was obstrncting ' plaintiffs view Ofthe groul'rdj~st prior to 

### the accident. This evidence thus demonstrated, ptima I 

### fade; thatthe alleged defoct waf trivial as 

### a nmher of law, and therefore, 

### was not actionable (see 4 

### [* 4]

## FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2024 INDEX NO. 519672/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 115 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

5 of 5 

### Haber v. CVS Pharmacy. Inc.. 2 7 A.D.3d at 660 , 190 N.Y.S.3d 14 8 ; 

### Balbo v. Greenfield's tlkt. ~j'Bethpage. LLC. 216 A.D.3d 1130 , 1131 190 .Y.S.3d 146). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. P aintiffs complaint is therefore dismissed in its entirety . In light of this determination, K&B ' s m tion for summaryjudgment is denied as moot, and the is ue of whether the alleged def ect was s ructural in nature need not be addressed. The branch of 4 114 Real y's motion for summaryjudgment against K&B for contractual indemnification pursuant to par graph 45B of the lease is denied . K&B ' s ob li gatio n to indemni fy 4114 Realty pursuant to this pro ision it's tri ggered only upon a finding that K&B was negligent. Inasmuch as the defect at issue i not actionable , K&B cannot be found negligent. For all of the above reas ns , it is hereby 

### ORDERED that the 41 14 Realty's motion is decided as indicated above and plaintiffs complaint is 

### DISMISSED in its entirety . K&B ' s motion is denied as moot . r--.) c::::, c_ Thi s constitutes the deci ion and order ofthe Court. rDated : June 5, 2024

5 I -..I :r,,,


## -**~** C) .r::- 0 

### PETER P. SWEENEY, J.S.C.

ote: This signature was generated electronically pursuant to A dministrativc Order 86/20 dated April 20 2020 . 

### = . 

# .. C



## - I ! . 

## - .

[* 5]