Cangelosi v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cangelosi v. City of New York

127 A.D.2d 625, 511 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43114

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.2d 625 (Cangelosi v. City of New York) 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

Cangelosi v. City of New York, 127 A.D.2d 625, 511 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York Transit Authority (hereinafter the Transit Authority) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jordan, J.), dated October 28, 1985, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term properly denied the Transit Authority’s motion for summary judgment. Questions of fact are presented as to whether, at the time of the accident, the plaintiff was a prospective passenger to whom the appellant carrier owed a duty to exercise care in providing a safe place to board a bus and whether that duty was breached. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York Transit Authority (hereinafter the Transit Authority) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jordan, J.), dated October 28, 1985, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term properly denied the Transit Authority’s motion for summary judgment. Questions of fact are presented as to whether, at the time of the accident, the plaintiff was a prospective passenger to whom the appellant carrier owed a duty to exercise care in providing a safe place to board a bus and whether that duty was breached. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 625, 511 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cangelosi-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1987.