Boatwright v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boatwright v. New York City Transit Authority

304 A.D.2d 421, 758 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4179

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

DecidedApril 17, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 421 (Boatwright 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

Boatwright v. New York City Transit Authority, 304 A.D.2d 421, 758 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered February 15, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell on a subway hatch installed in the sidewalk. The mere fact that the surface of the hatch was slippery when wet is insufficient to raise a triable issue as to negligence (Wasserstrom v New York City Tr. Auth., 267 AD2d 36, 37 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 761 [2000]). The expert affidavit offered by plaintiff was of no value, since the expert’s opinion was conclusory and was not supported by references to specific, currently applicable safety standards or practices (see Contreras v Zabar’s, 293 AD2d 362 [2002]). Plaintiff did not raise a triable issue as to whether the subway hatch, which features the usual type of raised treads used on cellar hatches, was defective (see Cornwell v Otis El. Co., 275 [422]*422AD2d 649 [2000]; Mosher v Town of Oppenheim, 263 AD2d 605, 606 [1999]; compare Radaelli v City of Troy, 229 AD2d 882 [1996] [smooth grate lacking any treads]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered February 15, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell on a subway hatch installed in the sidewalk. The mere fact that the surface of the hatch was slippery when wet is insufficient to raise a triable issue as to negligence (Wasserstrom v New York City Tr. Auth., 267 AD2d 36, 37 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 761 [2000]). The expert affidavit offered by plaintiff was of no value, since the expert’s opinion was conclusory and was not supported by references to specific, currently applicable safety standards or practices (see Contreras v Zabar’s, 293 AD2d 362 [2002]). Plaintiff did not raise a triable issue as to whether the subway hatch, which features the usual type of raised treads used on cellar hatches, was defective (see Cornwell v Otis El. Co., 275 [422]*422AD2d 649 [2000]; Mosher v Town of Oppenheim, 263 AD2d 605, 606 [1999]; compare Radaelli v City of Troy, 229 AD2d 882 [1996] [smooth grate lacking any treads]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 421, 758 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boatwright-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack