Daniels v. Long Island Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daniels v. Long Island Railroad

259 A.D.2d 726, 685 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3168

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 726 (Daniels v. Long Island Railroad) 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

Daniels v. Long Island Railroad, 259 A.D.2d 726, 685 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated January 20, 1998, as granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The infant plaintiff was allegedly injured when he gained access to railroad tracks owned and operated by the defendants, and while playing on the defendants’ property, sustained an electric shock from the third rail. Upon our review of the record, we find that questions of fact exist such that a trier of fact could find that the defendants failed to use reasonable care under the circumstances to prevent the infant plaintiff’s injuries (see, Scurti v City of New York, 40 NY2d 433). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated January 20, 1998, as granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The infant plaintiff was allegedly injured when he gained access to railroad tracks owned and operated by the defendants, and while playing on the defendants’ property, sustained an electric shock from the third rail. Upon our review of the record, we find that questions of fact exist such that a trier of fact could find that the defendants failed to use reasonable care under the circumstances to prevent the infant plaintiff’s injuries (see, Scurti v City of New York, 40 NY2d 433). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 726, 685 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-long-island-railroad-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack