Daniarov v. New York City Transit Authority

62 A.D.3d 480, 879 N.Y.S.2d 404
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 12, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 480 (Daniarov 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
Daniarov v. New York City Transit Authority, 62 A.D.3d 480, 879 N.Y.S.2d 404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

[481]*481Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered January 10, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff slipped on the third step from the bottom of a staircase in defendant’s subway station, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, 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.

Defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence including, inter alia, plaintiffs testimony that although there was no handrail to break her fall, she did not know how she fell or what caused her to slip.

In opposition, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from her expert, who, in contrast to plaintiffs testimony, found a handrail present at the point where plaintiff allegedly slipped, but asserted that alleged violations of the New York City Building Code with respect to the handrail caused plaintiffs accident. Plaintiff’s failure to testify as to what caused her accident is fatal to her cause of action (see Telfeyan v City of New York, 40 AD3d 372 [2007]), and such failure cannot be cured by her expert’s opinion that the subject handrails violated the Building Code, even if applicable, in the absence of any evidence connecting the alleged violations to plaintiffs fall (see Reed v Piran Realty Corp., 30 AD3d 319 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 801 [2007]; see also Ridolfi v Williams, 49 AD3d 295 [2008]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Related

Feinberg v. 72nd Tenants Corp.
2025 NY Slip Op 00720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Lee v. Widlanski
2023 NY Slip Op 01866 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Uppstrom v. Peter Dillon's Pub
2019 NY Slip Op 3690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Baker v. Roman Catholic Church of the Holy See
136 A.D.3d 596 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Lee v. Ana Development Corp.
110 A.D.3d 479 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Babich v. R.G.T. Restaurant Corp.
71 A.D.3d 479 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Wilson v. New York City Transit Authority
66 A.D.2d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 A.D.3d 480, 879 N.Y.S.2d 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniarov-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2009.