Arvinger v. Genway Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arvinger v. Genway Corp.

99 A.D.2d 500, 471 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16696

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 16, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.2d 500 (Arvinger v. Genway Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arvinger v. Genway Corp., 99 A.D.2d 500, 471 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

) In negligence actions to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kartell, J.), dated June 24,1982, as denied its motion for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, dismissing the complaints and cross claims against it. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on [501]*501the law, with costs, and motion granted. Plaintiffs were allegedly injured when a car driven by plaintiff Henry Arvinger, in which plaintiff Janice Arvinger was a passenger, hit part of a trolley track protruding from the street at the intersection of Nostrand Avenue and Quincy Street. The record on appeal and the relevant Board of Estimate resolutions conclusively establish that the defendant New York City Transit Authority neither owned nor controlled the tracks in issue. Accordingly, the complaints and cross claims against the Transit Authority must be dismissed (Administrative Code of City of New York, § 1151-8.0; Gluck v Pinkerton N. Y. Racing Security Serv., 96 AD2d 548; Spadaro v Consolidated Edison Co., 73 AD2d 616). We also note that this court may grant the relief requested even if a prior motion seeking the same relief as that sought by the instant motion had been initiated on an earlier occasion (see Scott v Transkrit Corp., 91 AD2d 682). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

) In negligence actions to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kartell, J.), dated June 24,1982, as denied its motion for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, dismissing the complaints and cross claims against it. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on [501]*501the law, with costs, and motion granted. Plaintiffs were allegedly injured when a car driven by plaintiff Henry Arvinger, in which plaintiff Janice Arvinger was a passenger, hit part of a trolley track protruding from the street at the intersection of Nostrand Avenue and Quincy Street. The record on appeal and the relevant Board of Estimate resolutions conclusively establish that the defendant New York City Transit Authority neither owned nor controlled the tracks in issue. Accordingly, the complaints and cross claims against the Transit Authority must be dismissed (Administrative Code of City of New York, § 1151-8.0; Gluck v Pinkerton N. Y. Racing Security Serv., 96 AD2d 548; Spadaro v Consolidated Edison Co., 73 AD2d 616). We also note that this court may grant the relief requested even if a prior motion seeking the same relief as that sought by the instant motion had been initiated on an earlier occasion (see Scott v Transkrit Corp., 91 AD2d 682). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 500, 471 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arvinger-v-genway-corp-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack