Furman-Rawlings v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Furman-Rawlings v. New York City Transit Authority

61 A.D.3d 478, 877 N.Y.S.2d 40

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

DecidedApril 14, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 478 (Furman-Rawlings 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

Furman-Rawlings v. New York City Transit Authority, 61 A.D.3d 478, 877 N.Y.S.2d 40 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered April 21, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff stepped on an extension cord, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff sustained an electric shock when she stepped on an electric cord where it was plugged into a surge protector at office space owned by defendant. This negligence action is based on the premise that defendant’s failure to provide adequate lighting required plaintiff and her coworkers to resort to lamps which they plugged into outlets and surge protectors throughout the office. Plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a causal connection between her injury and the inadequacy of the office’s lighting conditions (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315 [1980]). Indeed, plaintiff testified that she had stepped backwards when her foot came into contact with the cord. We also note that plaintiffs notice of claim cites “a broken and/or defective electrical wire or power strip that constituted a nuisance or trap” as the cause of her injury. Concur—Tom, J.P, Andrias, Buckley and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered April 21, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff stepped on an extension cord, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff sustained an electric shock when she stepped on an electric cord where it was plugged into a surge protector at office space owned by defendant. This negligence action is based on the premise that defendant’s failure to provide adequate lighting required plaintiff and her coworkers to resort to lamps which they plugged into outlets and surge protectors throughout the office. Plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a causal connection between her injury and the inadequacy of the office’s lighting conditions (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315 [1980]). Indeed, plaintiff testified that she had stepped backwards when her foot came into contact with the cord. We also note that plaintiffs notice of claim cites “a broken and/or defective electrical wire or power strip that constituted a nuisance or trap” as the cause of her injury. Concur—Tom, J.P, Andrias, Buckley and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 478, 877 N.Y.S.2d 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furman-rawlings-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack