Bennett v. New York City Transit Authority

New York Court of Appeals

Bennett v. New York City Transit Authority

821 N.E.2d 137, 3 N.Y.3d 745, 787 N.Y.S.2d 711, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 3524

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 18, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 821 N.E.2d 137 (Bennett 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

Bennett v. New York City Transit Authority, 821 N.E.2d 137, 3 N.Y.3d 745, 787 N.Y.S.2d 711, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 3524 (N.Y. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. Plaintiffs notice of claim provided information sufficient to apprise defendant New York City Transit Authority of the place, time and nature of her accident in order to “investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of [the] claim” (see Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389, 392 [2000]). Moreover, triable issues of fact exist whether the Transit Authority had constructive notice that a continuing water condition existed on the platform of its subway station and negligently failed to remedy it.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. Plaintiffs notice of claim provided information sufficient to apprise defendant New York City Transit Authority of the place, time and nature of her accident in order to “investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of [the] claim” (see Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389, 392 [2000]). Moreover, triable issues of fact exist whether the Transit Authority had constructive notice that a continuing water condition existed on the platform of its subway station and negligently failed to remedy it.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

821 N.E.2d 137, 3 N.Y.3d 745, 787 N.Y.S.2d 711, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 3524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-ny-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack