Byrne v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Byrne v. New York City Transit Authority

78 A.D.3d 525, 910 N.Y.S.2d 649

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 78 A.D.3d 525 (Byrne 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

Byrne v. New York City Transit Authority, 78 A.D.3d 525, 910 N.Y.S.2d 649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), entered June 15, 2009, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The claim of negligence in allowing a slippery condition to persist in the aisle of the bus is precluded, as a matter of law, by the undisputed fact that the slip and fall occurred during a rainstorm. Defendant is not obligated to provide a constant remedy for the tracking of water onto a bus during an ongoing storm (Morazzani v MTA N.Y. City Tr., 67 AD3d 598 [2009]). Furthermore, the nature of plaintiff’s decedent’s injuries, and her description of the incident at the statutory hearing, were insufficient to satisfy the requirement of showing that the bus’s departure was sudden, causing a jerk or lurch that was unusual and violent (see Urquhart v New York City Tr. Auth., 85 NY2d 828 [1995]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), entered June 15, 2009, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The claim of negligence in allowing a slippery condition to persist in the aisle of the bus is precluded, as a matter of law, by the undisputed fact that the slip and fall occurred during a rainstorm. Defendant is not obligated to provide a constant remedy for the tracking of water onto a bus during an ongoing storm (Morazzani v MTA N.Y. City Tr., 67 AD3d 598 [2009]). Furthermore, the nature of plaintiff’s decedent’s injuries, and her description of the incident at the statutory hearing, were insufficient to satisfy the requirement of showing that the bus’s departure was sudden, causing a jerk or lurch that was unusual and violent (see Urquhart v New York City Tr. Auth., 85 NY2d 828 [1995]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 525, 910 N.Y.S.2d 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrne-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack