D'Ambra v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Ambra v. New York City Transit Authority

16 A.D.3d 101, 790 N.Y.S.2d 120, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2068

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 101 (D'Ambra 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

D'Ambra v. New York City Transit Authority, 16 A.D.3d 101, 790 N.Y.S.2d 120, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2068 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered September 25, 2003, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff was allegedly injured when she tripped and fell while descending a stairway in a subway station. Defendant satisfied its burden on summary judgment by submitting evidence in the form of maintenance records and testimony of maintenance employees establishing, as a matter of law, that no defect as alleged by plaintiff was ever reported, investigated or repaired at the location in question in the two-year period immediately prior to this incident. In response, plaintiffs evidence was inconsistent and speculative in identifying the defect allegedly causing her injury (see Kane v Estia Greek Rest., 4 AD3d 189 [2004]; Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383 [2002]), and failed to establish the existence of such defect or that defendant had actual or constructive notice of it and sufficient time to remedy it (Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246, 249 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 670 [1984]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered September 25, 2003, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff was allegedly injured when she tripped and fell while descending a stairway in a subway station. Defendant satisfied its burden on summary judgment by submitting evidence in the form of maintenance records and testimony of maintenance employees establishing, as a matter of law, that no defect as alleged by plaintiff was ever reported, investigated or repaired at the location in question in the two-year period immediately prior to this incident. In response, plaintiffs evidence was inconsistent and speculative in identifying the defect allegedly causing her injury (see Kane v Estia Greek Rest., 4 AD3d 189 [2004]; Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383 [2002]), and failed to establish the existence of such defect or that defendant had actual or constructive notice of it and sufficient time to remedy it (Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246, 249 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 670 [1984]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 101, 790 N.Y.S.2d 120, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dambra-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack