George v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

George v. New York City Transit Authority

41 A.D.3d 143, 837 N.Y.S.2d 130

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

DecidedJune 7, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 143 (George 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

George v. New York City Transit Authority, 41 A.D.3d 143, 837 N.Y.S.2d 130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered July 6, 2006, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Defendant’s argument that plaintiff was speculating as to the cause of her fall is irrelevant on the issue of notice. The record demonstrates that plaintiff, as found by this Court in its prior decision (306 AD2d 160 [2003]), “was injured as she descended from an elevated subway station during rush hour when she allegedly stepped onto a concrete step from which a chunk of concrete was missing, whereupon she twisted her foot, fracturing it.”

“To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]). Given plaintiffs testimony, the photographs that we previously ruled clearly depict the defect, and the affidavit of plaintiffs expert who stated that the defect “was not an overnight occurrence but was the result of long [144]*144standing deterioration,” there is a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the condition (see e.g. Alexander v New York City Tr., 34 AD3d 312 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P. Saxe, Marlow, Sullivan 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 D. Lippmann, J.), entered July 6, 2006, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Defendant’s argument that plaintiff was speculating as to the cause of her fall is irrelevant on the issue of notice. The record demonstrates that plaintiff, as found by this Court in its prior decision (306 AD2d 160 [2003]), “was injured as she descended from an elevated subway station during rush hour when she allegedly stepped onto a concrete step from which a chunk of concrete was missing, whereupon she twisted her foot, fracturing it.”

“To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]). Given plaintiffs testimony, the photographs that we previously ruled clearly depict the defect, and the affidavit of plaintiffs expert who stated that the defect “was not an overnight occurrence but was the result of long [144]*144standing deterioration,” there is a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the condition (see e.g. Alexander v New York City Tr., 34 AD3d 312 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P. Saxe, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 143, 837 N.Y.S.2d 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack