Cagan v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cagan v. New York City Transit Authority

289 A.D.2d 358, 734 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12196

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 358 (Cagan 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

Cagan v. New York City Transit Authority, 289 A.D.2d 358, 734 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to re[359]*359cover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated February 23, 2001, as, upon renewal, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she tripped and fell on a piece of gum as she descended a staircase. The Supreme Court, upon renewal, properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to re[359]*359cover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated February 23, 2001, as, upon renewal, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she tripped and fell on a piece of gum as she descended a staircase. The Supreme Court, upon renewal, properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 358, 734 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cagan-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack