Dioguardi v. Hampton Jitney, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dioguardi v. Hampton Jitney, Inc.

28 A.D.3d 706, 813 N.Y.S.2d 536

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

DecidedApril 25, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.3d 706 (Dioguardi v. Hampton Jitney, Inc.) 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

Dioguardi v. Hampton Jitney, Inc., 28 A.D.3d 706, 813 N.Y.S.2d 536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated March 14, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]), the plaintiff submitted his own deposition testimony, in which he stated that he fell and was injured when he attempted to exit the defendant’s bus because his foot became caught on a protrusion on the top step of the bus (see Clark v Town of Scriba, 280 AD2d 915 [2001]) and the interior lights were not turned on so as to facilitate his safe egress at his scheduled stop (see Tarrazi v 2025 Richmond Ave. Assoc., 296 AD2d 542 [2002]; Shirman v New York City Tr. Auth., 264 AD2d 832 [1999]). Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact regarding the defendant’s alleged negligence. Adams, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Covello, 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, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated March 14, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]), the plaintiff submitted his own deposition testimony, in which he stated that he fell and was injured when he attempted to exit the defendant’s bus because his foot became caught on a protrusion on the top step of the bus (see Clark v Town of Scriba, 280 AD2d 915 [2001]) and the interior lights were not turned on so as to facilitate his safe egress at his scheduled stop (see Tarrazi v 2025 Richmond Ave. Assoc., 296 AD2d 542 [2002]; Shirman v New York City Tr. Auth., 264 AD2d 832 [1999]). Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact regarding the defendant’s alleged negligence. Adams, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 706, 813 N.Y.S.2d 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dioguardi-v-hampton-jitney-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack