rules). Neither party raised a choice-of-law question, and the parties’ briefs both assume that New York substantive law applies. Under New York tort law, whether a dangerous or defective condition exists so as to create liability in negligence “depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury.” Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 665 N.Y.S.2d 615, 688 N.E.2d 489, 490 (N.Y.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, a property owner may not be held hable in damages for “trivial defects on a walkway, not constituting a trap or nuisance, as a consequence of which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his toes, or trip over a raised projection.” Marin .2d 595, 706 N.Y.S.2d 156 (NY.App.Div.2000) (<HOLDING>). New York courts often rely on the judge’s
holding that although the alleged defect was only onehalf inch deep plaintiffs raised triable issue of fact as to whether the color of the carpet and poor lighting in the room presented a trap for the unwary holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding that the defendants failed to establish an entitlement to dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint when the alleged fraud was immaterial to any issue that would ultimately be presented to the fact finder holding that where an issue is raised in the district court but raised late and the district court declines to deem the issue waived the issue may be raised on appeal holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation