Francis v. New York City Transit Authority

295 A.D.2d 164, 744 N.Y.S.2d 9, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6147
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 13, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 164 (Francis 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
Francis v. New York City Transit Authority, 295 A.D.2d 164, 744 N.Y.S.2d 9, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul Victor, J.), entered May 4, 2001, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by a tripping hazard on the platform of defendant Transit Authority’s above-ground subway platform, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff testified at deposition that as he fled a threatening gang of youths, he tripped over a protruding metal plate on the subway platform, causing him to fall close to the platform’s edge, then almost immediately onto the tracks and ultimately through the tracks and onto the street below. We reject defendant’s argument that such testimony establishes, as a matter of law, that plaintiffs injuries were not caused by the allegedly hazardous metal plate but by the gang’s actions and plaintiffs response thereto. Giving plaintiffs testimony the benefit of every favorable inference, a jury could find that he would not have tripped and fallen had it not been for the metal plate, and that he would not have rolled onto the tracks had he not tripped and fallen so close to the edge of the platform. Of course, there may be more than one proximate cause for an injury (CPLR art 14). Inconsistencies between plaintiffs dep[165]*165osition testimony and his General Municipal Law § 50-h testimony eight years earlier, which suggested less immediacy between his trip and fall on the platform and his tumble onto the tracks, raise issues of credibility that should also be left for trial (see, Yaziciyan v Blancato, 267 AD2d 152). Concur— Williams, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Related

Grebinger v. City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 30528(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Allen v. Actors Equity Holding Corp.
2025 NY Slip Op 30091(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Muhammad v. New York City Housing Authority
111 A.D.3d 513 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Wilcox v. Valley Central School District
107 A.D.3d 1127 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Cassizzi v. Fordham University
101 A.D.3d 645 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Narvaez v. 2914 Third Avenue Bronx, LLC
88 A.D.3d 500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
295 A.D.2d 164, 744 N.Y.S.2d 9, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2002.