Butler v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Butler v. New York City Transit Authority

41 A.D.3d 173, 836 N.Y.S.2d 408

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

DecidedJune 12, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 173 (Butler 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

Butler v. New York City Transit Authority, 41 A.D.3d 173, 836 N.Y.S.2d 408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about June 13, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There was no evidence of how plaintiff came to be on the subway tracks. Furthermore, defendant’s standard request that plaintiff leave the train at the end of the line did not assume a special duty toward him, even though plaintiff appeared visibly intoxicated at the time (see Serrano v City of New York, 150 AD2d 297 [1989]; see also LaLonde v Hurteau, 239 AD2d 858 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 807 [1997]). Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about June 13, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There was no evidence of how plaintiff came to be on the subway tracks. Furthermore, defendant’s standard request that plaintiff leave the train at the end of the line did not assume a special duty toward him, even though plaintiff appeared visibly intoxicated at the time (see Serrano v City of New York, 150 AD2d 297 [1989]; see also LaLonde v Hurteau, 239 AD2d 858 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 807 [1997]). Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 173, 836 N.Y.S.2d 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack