Connaughton v. New York City Transit Authority

301 A.D.2d 389, 753 N.Y.S.2d 80, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 114
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 9, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 389 (Connaughton 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
Connaughton v. New York City Transit Authority, 301 A.D.2d 389, 753 N.Y.S.2d 80, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila AbdusSalaam, J.), entered October 3, 2001, which granted petitioner’s motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim for injuries sustained in a fall on steps leading into a subway station, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s submissions sufficiently show that the delay in serving a notice of claim was due to disabling physical and mental conditions caused by the accident, and that respondent’s token clerk was told about the accident shortly after it happened by petitioner’s companion (see Matter of Strauss v New York City Tr. Auth., 195 AD2d 322). In addition, the accumulation of water and ice on the stairs was either a transient condition that respondent likely could not have investigated even if it had been served with a timely notice (see id,.), or, if caused by a clogged drain that respondent had a duty to maintain, as petitioner alleges, should have generated inspection and maintenance records that respondent can retrieve. Respondent’s evidence that it was not responsible for maintaining the steps on which petitioner fell or the appurtenant drain pipe does not dispel the possibility that the water and ice on the steps were caused by a backup in the pipes lower down, or otherwise demonstrate that petitioner’s claim is “patently meritless” (see Caldwell v 302 Convent Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 272 AD2d [390]*390112, 114). Concur — Buckley, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Related

Friedman v. New York City Tr. Auth.
2025 NY Slip Op 30016(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Matter of Sosa v. City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
Courtney Nicole R. v. Moravia Central School District
28 A.D.3d 1134 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Samad-Matias v. City of New York
8 Misc. 3d 207 (New York Supreme Court, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
301 A.D.2d 389, 753 N.Y.S.2d 80, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connaughton-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2003.