Black v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Black v. New York City Transit Authority

68 A.D.3d 695, 888 N.Y.2d 913

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 695 (Black 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

Black v. New York City Transit Authority, 68 A.D.3d 695, 888 N.Y.2d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

On July 13, 2004 the plaintiff Leston Black allegedly fell onto the tracks of a subway station in Brooklyn, and was struck by a train entering the station.

The defendants met their initial burden on their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the defendant [696]*696train operator could not have stopped the train in time to avoid the accident (see Stanley v New York City Tr. Auth., 45 AD3d 832, 833 [2007]; see also Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In opposition, however, the plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence to raise triable issues of fact as to how long the injured plaintiff was on the train tracks prior to being struck by the train and whether the train operator could have stopped the train in time to avoid the accident (see Stanley v New York City Tr. Auth., 45 AD3d at 833; see also Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Skelos, J.P., Eng, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

On July 13, 2004 the plaintiff Leston Black allegedly fell onto the tracks of a subway station in Brooklyn, and was struck by a train entering the station.

The defendants met their initial burden on their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the defendant [696]*696train operator could not have stopped the train in time to avoid the accident (see Stanley v New York City Tr. Auth., 45 AD3d 832, 833 [2007]; see also Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In opposition, however, the plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence to raise triable issues of fact as to how long the injured plaintiff was on the train tracks prior to being struck by the train and whether the train operator could have stopped the train in time to avoid the accident (see Stanley v New York City Tr. Auth., 45 AD3d at 833; see also Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Skelos, J.P., Eng, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 695, 888 N.Y.2d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack