Elam v. New York Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elam v. New York Transit Authority

183 A.D.2d 599, 586 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7465

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

DecidedMay 21, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 599 (Elam v. New York 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

Elam v. New York Transit Authority, 183 A.D.2d 599, 586 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Smyk, J.), rendered October 19, 1990 upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff individually, in the amount of $835,000, and as administratrix of the Estate of Norman Elam, $25,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order of the same court and Judge entered on or about November 2, 1990 denying defendant’s post-trial motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative, directing a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was seriously injured as a result of a trip and fall on defendant’s staircase located inside the 34th Street and Seventh Avenue IRT station. Apparently, plaintiff’s right pump shoe became trapped on a step which had a detached metal plate which usually covers the concrete steps. The detached plate exposed an area of broken and crumbled concrete.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, sufficient proof existed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the public carrier (see, Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246, affd 64 NY2d 670), and thus the jury’s findings of fact will not be disturbed. Furthermore, we do not believe that the jury’s award of damages deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501 [c]). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Smyk, J.), rendered October 19, 1990 upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff individually, in the amount of $835,000, and as administratrix of the Estate of Norman Elam, $25,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order of the same court and Judge entered on or about November 2, 1990 denying defendant’s post-trial motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative, directing a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was seriously injured as a result of a trip and fall on defendant’s staircase located inside the 34th Street and Seventh Avenue IRT station. Apparently, plaintiff’s right pump shoe became trapped on a step which had a detached metal plate which usually covers the concrete steps. The detached plate exposed an area of broken and crumbled concrete.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, sufficient proof existed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the public carrier (see, Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246, affd 64 NY2d 670), and thus the jury’s findings of fact will not be disturbed. Furthermore, we do not believe that the jury’s award of damages deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501 [c]). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 599, 586 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elam-v-new-york-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack