Home/New York Court of Appeals/Bardavid v. New York City Transit Authority

Bardavid v. New York City Transit Authority

463 N.E.2d 1216, 61 N.Y.2d 986, 475 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4220
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 27, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 463 N.E.2d 1216 (Bardavid v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bardavid v. New York City Transit Authority, 463 N.E.2d 1216, 61 N.Y.2d 986, 475 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4220 (N.Y. 1984).

Opinion

OPINION OF’THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The Transit Authority owes no duty to protect a person on its premises from assault by a third person absent facts establishing a special relationship between the Authority and the person assaulted (Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 55 NY2d 175). By installing an electric sign to inform prospective passengers of the arrival of the elevator to take them down to the subway platform, the Transit Authority assumed no special duty to plaintiff; moreover, plaintiff’s descent into the alcove giving access to the elevator with knowledge that the electric sign was not then working precludes any claim of reliance on the sign by her (cf. De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296). The uncontroverted facts in the present case clearly establish that no special duty had been created. Unlike the situation in De Long (supra), the Transit Authority gave no affirmative personal assurance to plaintiff, and she did not rely detrimentally on the service that had been made generally available. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

*988 Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Duffy v. New York City Transit Authority
210 A.D.2d 197 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Genovese v. New York City Transit Authority
204 A.D.2d 116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Jaramillo v. Callen Realty
200 A.D.2d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Belle v. New York City Transit Authority
157 Misc. 2d 76 (New York Supreme Court, 1993)
Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority
184 A.D.2d 417 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Keitt v. New York City Transit Authority
176 A.D.2d 919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Pascarella v. City of New York
146 A.D.2d 61 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Nola v. New York City Transit Authority
115 A.D.2d 348 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Crosland v. New York City Transit Authority
110 A.D.2d 148 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Helman v. County of Warren
111 A.D.2d 560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Rion v. Town of Ashland
110 A.D.2d 944 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
463 N.E.2d 1216, 61 N.Y.2d 986, 475 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bardavid-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-ny-1984.