Bethel v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bethel v. New York City Transit Authority

215 A.D.2d 206, 626 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5010

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

DecidedMay 11, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 206 (Bethel 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

Bethel v. New York City Transit Authority, 215 A.D.2d 206, 626 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.), entered July 23, 1993, which denied the motion by defendant New York City Transit Authority ("NYCTA”) for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court, in this personal injury action, properly denied the motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint. The record reveals that NYCTA and the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority ("MABSTOA”) should be equitably estopped from denying lack of proper notice, where, as here, their conduct was calculated to, or negligently did, mislead or discourage the plaintiff from serving a timely notice of claim (Fryczynski v Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 116 AD2d 979, Iv dismissed 67 NY2d 960).

Summary judgment should also be denied because there is a material triable issue of fact, raised by NYCTA’s maintenance records, as to whether defendant NYCTA, rather than MABSTOA, maintained and/or repaired the defective passenger seat on the bus that precipitated the plaintiffs injuries. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.), entered July 23, 1993, which denied the motion by defendant New York City Transit Authority ("NYCTA”) for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court, in this personal injury action, properly denied the motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint. The record reveals that NYCTA and the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority ("MABSTOA”) should be equitably estopped from denying lack of proper notice, where, as here, their conduct was calculated to, or negligently did, mislead or discourage the plaintiff from serving a timely notice of claim (Fryczynski v Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 116 AD2d 979, Iv dismissed 67 NY2d 960).

Summary judgment should also be denied because there is a material triable issue of fact, raised by NYCTA’s maintenance records, as to whether defendant NYCTA, rather than MABSTOA, maintained and/or repaired the defective passenger seat on the bus that precipitated the plaintiffs injuries. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 206, 626 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bethel-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack