Austin v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Austin v. City of New York

280 A.D.2d 425, 721 N.Y.S.2d 500, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1931

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 425 (Austin v. City of New York) 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

Austin v. City of New York, 280 A.D.2d 425, 721 N.Y.S.2d 500, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1931 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered September 28, 1999, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when an incendiary device exploded on a subway train owned and operated by defendant-respondent, granted such defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No basis exists to depart from our precedent dismissing other actions brought against defendant arising out of the same incident (Lee v New York City Tr. Auth., 249 AD2d 93 [lv dismissed in part and denied in part 92 NY2d 944], citing Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 55 NY2d 175). The foregoing should not be understood as condonation of defendant’s noncompliance with its disclosure obligations, of which we strongly disapprove. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered September 28, 1999, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when an incendiary device exploded on a subway train owned and operated by defendant-respondent, granted such defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No basis exists to depart from our precedent dismissing other actions brought against defendant arising out of the same incident (Lee v New York City Tr. Auth., 249 AD2d 93 [lv dismissed in part and denied in part 92 NY2d 944], citing Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 55 NY2d 175). The foregoing should not be understood as condonation of defendant’s noncompliance with its disclosure obligations, of which we strongly disapprove. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 425, 721 N.Y.S.2d 500, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack