Batista v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Batista v. New York City Transit Authority

66 A.D.2d 433, 886 N.Y.S.2d 403

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

DecidedOctober 8, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 433 (Batista v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Batista v. New York City Transit Authority, 66 A.D.2d 433, 886 N.Y.S.2d 403 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, [434]*434New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered September 3, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

The assertion of plaintiffs expert that there were defects in the staircase on which plaintiff fell is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to proximate cause, because there is no evidence connecting plaintiffs fall to those defects (Kane v Estia Greek Rest., 4 AD3d 189 [2004]; see also Telfeyan v City of New York, 40 AD3d 372 [2007]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, [434]*434New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered September 3, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

The assertion of plaintiffs expert that there were defects in the staircase on which plaintiff fell is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to proximate cause, because there is no evidence connecting plaintiffs fall to those defects (Kane v Estia Greek Rest., 4 AD3d 189 [2004]; see also Telfeyan v City of New York, 40 AD3d 372 [2007]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 433, 886 N.Y.S.2d 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/batista-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack