Chery v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chery v. New York City Transit Authority

260 A.D.2d 529, 686 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4083

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

DecidedApril 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 529 (Chery 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

Chery v. New York City Transit Authority, 260 A.D.2d 529, 686 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4083 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated January 15, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. There was no evidence to establish that the defendant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition which caused the plaintiff to slip and fall (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Robles v City of New York, 255 AD2d 305; Busterna v Branch Off. Assocs., 253 AD2d 837; Goodwin v Knolls at Stony Brook Homeowners Assn., 251 AD2d 451). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated January 15, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. There was no evidence to establish that the defendant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition which caused the plaintiff to slip and fall (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Robles v City of New York, 255 AD2d 305; Busterna v Branch Off. Assocs., 253 AD2d 837; Goodwin v Knolls at Stony Brook Homeowners Assn., 251 AD2d 451). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 529, 686 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chery-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack