Dowdell v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dowdell v. New York City Transit Authority

255 A.D.2d 195, 679 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12436

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 195 (Dowdell 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

Dowdell v. New York City Transit Authority, 255 A.D.2d 195, 679 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered May 21, 1997, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in the December 21, 1994 firebombing of a subway train, granted defendant-respondent Transit Authority’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs claim that one of defendant’s employees thwarted an attempt by another of its employees to come to her aid, and that defendant is therefore liable to her for having breached a special duty of care, is without merit for the reasons stated in Lee v New York City Tr. Auth. (249 AD2d 93). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered May 21, 1997, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in the December 21, 1994 firebombing of a subway train, granted defendant-respondent Transit Authority’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs claim that one of defendant’s employees thwarted an attempt by another of its employees to come to her aid, and that defendant is therefore liable to her for having breached a special duty of care, is without merit for the reasons stated in Lee v New York City Tr. Auth. (249 AD2d 93). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 195, 679 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowdell-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack