Durney v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Durney v. New York City Transit Authority

249 A.D.2d 213, 671 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4669

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

DecidedApril 28, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 213 (Durney 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

Durney v. New York City Transit Authority, 249 A.D.2d 213, 671 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered February 19, 1997, which, in an action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell in a [214]*214puddle of urine in defendant’s subway station, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted for lack of proof that defendant had actual notice of the condition that allegedly caused plaintiff to fall or constructive notice of that condition by reason of recurrence. At most, it was shown that defendant had a “ ‘general awareness’ ” of the homeless people in the area and associated debris, which is “legally insufficient to constitute notice of the particular condition that caused plaintiff’s fall” (Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967, 969). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Andrias, 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 February 19, 1997, which, in an action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell in a [214]*214puddle of urine in defendant’s subway station, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted for lack of proof that defendant had actual notice of the condition that allegedly caused plaintiff to fall or constructive notice of that condition by reason of recurrence. At most, it was shown that defendant had a “ ‘general awareness’ ” of the homeless people in the area and associated debris, which is “legally insufficient to constitute notice of the particular condition that caused plaintiff’s fall” (Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967, 969). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 213, 671 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durney-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack