Genovese v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Genovese v. New York City Transit Authority

204 A.D.2d 116, 611 N.Y.S.2d 542, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5101

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

DecidedMay 10, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 116 (Genovese 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

Genovese v. New York City Transit Authority, 204 A.D.2d 116, 611 N.Y.S.2d 542, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5101 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about April 1, 1993, which granted defendant New York City Transit Authority’s (NYCTA) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs claim that defendant NYCTA was negligent in failing to maintain the lock on an exit near where he was assaulted by unknown persons does not implicate a proprietary function of defendant, and thus the instant action cannot be maintained absent a special relationship between the parties (compare, Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, with Bardavid v New York City Tr. Auth., 61 NY2d 986; Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 55 NY2d 175; Farber v New York City Tr. Auth., 143 AD2d 112). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, 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 on or about April 1, 1993, which granted defendant New York City Transit Authority’s (NYCTA) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs claim that defendant NYCTA was negligent in failing to maintain the lock on an exit near where he was assaulted by unknown persons does not implicate a proprietary function of defendant, and thus the instant action cannot be maintained absent a special relationship between the parties (compare, Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, with Bardavid v New York City Tr. Auth., 61 NY2d 986; Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 55 NY2d 175; Farber v New York City Tr. Auth., 143 AD2d 112). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 116, 611 N.Y.S.2d 542, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/genovese-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack