Colon v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colon v. New York City Transit Authority

251 A.D.2d 615, 675 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7927

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

DecidedJune 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 615 (Colon 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

Colon v. New York City Transit Authority, 251 A.D.2d 615, 675 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated August 18, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as there was no evidence to establish that the defendant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff to slip and fall (see, Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436; Gaeta v City of New York, 213 AD2d 509; Bradish v Tank Tech [616]*616Corp., 216 AD2d 505; Pirillo v Longwood Assocs., 179 AD2d 744).

The plaintiffs contention that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was premature is without merit (see, Douglas Manor Assn. v Alimaras, 215 AD2d 522, 524). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated August 18, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as there was no evidence to establish that the defendant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff to slip and fall (see, Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436; Gaeta v City of New York, 213 AD2d 509; Bradish v Tank Tech [616]*616Corp., 216 AD2d 505; Pirillo v Longwood Assocs., 179 AD2d 744).

The plaintiffs contention that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was premature is without merit (see, Douglas Manor Assn. v Alimaras, 215 AD2d 522, 524). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 615, 675 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colon-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack