Conetta v. New York City Transit Authority

307 A.D.2d 333, 762 N.Y.S.2d 634
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 28, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 307 A.D.2d 333 (Conetta 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
Conetta v. New York City Transit Authority, 307 A.D.2d 333, 762 N.Y.S.2d 634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), dated June 18, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured on April 12, 2000, when she fell while alighting from a bus operated by the defendant, the New York City Transit Authority. “A common carrier owes a duty to an alighting passenger to stop at a place where the passenger may safely disembark and leave the area” (Miller v Fernan, 73 NY2d 844, 846 [1988]; see Diedrick v City of New York, 162 AD2d 496 [1990]). The plaintiff contends that the bus driver, an employee of the defendant, breached his duty to provide her with a safe place to disembark because, as she attempted to exit the bus, she was caused to fall when her right foot stepped down onto the uneven, sloped part of a curb that had been cut for a driveway.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, because the defendant failed to demonstrate that it met its duty to the plaintiff under the circumstances of this case. Questions of fact exist as to whether the defendant breached its duty to the plaintiff, whether such breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries, and whether the plaintiff was comparatively negligent. The defendant failed to set forth evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle it to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Feuerstein, J.P., Friedmann, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bruno v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.
2018 NY Slip Op 69 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Kearns v. Adirondack Trailways, Inc.
59 A.D.3d 774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Solovey v. New York City Transit Authority
19 Misc. 3d 222 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)
Napoli v. Ambus, Inc.
31 A.D.3d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Bryant v. New York City Transit Authority
29 A.D.3d 844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Ajayi v. New York City Transit Authority
28 A.D.3d 502 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Frett v. New York City Transit Authority
24 A.D.3d 605 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Malawer v. New York City Transit Authority
18 A.D.3d 293 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
307 A.D.2d 333, 762 N.Y.S.2d 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conetta-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2003.