Benanti v. Port Authority

176 A.D.2d 549
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 10, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 176 A.D.2d 549 (Benanti v. Port 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
Benanti v. Port Authority, 176 A.D.2d 549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered June 6, 1990, which granted defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s (PA) motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs in this personal injury action allege inter alia that plaintiff Philip Benanti, while walking along the arrival platform at the Port Authority Bus Terminal during morning rush hour, sustained injuries proximately caused by PA’s negligence in suffering unmanaged, overcrowded conditions on its premises. The various pleadings indicate Philip Benanti disembarked from a bus and immediately merged with an ordinary crowd of workbound commuters who walked along a three to four foot-wide platform leading to an exit stairwell. Mr. Benanti, who was surrounded by commuters, yet had space of several feet to the next person in front of him, was purportedly jostled from behind and caused to fall, injuring his hip. On this record, plaintiffs’ negligence claim — premised upon an overcrowding theory — is insufficiently asserted inasmuch as plaintiff has failed to show he was unable to find a place of safety or that his free movement was restricted due to the alleged overcrowded conditions. (See, e.g., Ryan v City of New York, 7 AD2d 298, affd 6 NY2d 896.) As to any remaining theories of negligence now argued by plaintiffs, they have [550]*550failed to present any proof in evidentiary form to raise triable issues of fact as to their alternative theories of liability. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

Related

Sachar v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
129 A.D.3d 420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Alexopoulos v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
41 A.D.3d 171 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Santodonato v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc.
26 A.D.3d 543 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Sawyer v. Wight
196 F. Supp. 2d 220 (E.D. New York, 2002)
Madden v. Pine Hill-Kingston Bus Corp.
288 A.D.2d 600 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Greenberg v. Sterling Doubleday Enterprises, L.P.
240 A.D.2d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Palmieri v. Ringling Bros.
237 A.D.2d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 A.D.2d 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benanti-v-port-authority-nyappdiv-1991.