Doobovoy v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doobovoy v. New York City Transit Authority

259 A.D.2d 590, 686 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2477

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 590 (Doobovoy 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

Doobovoy v. New York City Transit Authority, 259 A.D.2d 590, 686 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2477 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated February 20, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff Yevgeniy Doobovoy alleged that he was injured when he slipped on a wet substance inside the entrance to the subway station at 8th Avenue and 62nd Street in Brooklyn. The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion, as the record contained no evidence from which one could conclude that the defendant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the purportedly dangerous condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s fall (see, Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967; see also, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837; Paul v New York City Tr. Auth., 244 AD2d 322; Rosario v New York City Tr. Auth., 215 AD2d 364, 365). S. Miller, J. P., Florio, Mc-Ginity and Luciano, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated February 20, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff Yevgeniy Doobovoy alleged that he was injured when he slipped on a wet substance inside the entrance to the subway station at 8th Avenue and 62nd Street in Brooklyn. The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion, as the record contained no evidence from which one could conclude that the defendant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the purportedly dangerous condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s fall (see, Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967; see also, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837; Paul v New York City Tr. Auth., 244 AD2d 322; Rosario v New York City Tr. Auth., 215 AD2d 364, 365). S. Miller, J. P., Florio, Mc-Ginity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 590, 686 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doobovoy-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack