Goldstein v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldstein v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

155 Misc. 2d 1, 597 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 139

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 14, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 155 Misc. 2d 1 (Goldstein v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldstein v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 155 Misc. 2d 1, 597 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered August 13, 1991 reversed, with $10 costs, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint dismissed.

The plaintiff’s admitted refusal to pay the one-way fare or leave the commuter train — conduct which resulted in a delay of approximately 25 minutes to the other passengers — provided a lawful basis to arrest plaintiff for disorderly conduct (see, Matter of Charles M., 143 AD2d 96) or theft of services (see, Burroughs v New York City Tr. Auth., 112 AD2d 186). That plaintiff may have felt aggrieved because monthly commutation tickets were unavailable for purchase on the day involved (a Sunday) does not render actionable the otherwise lawful conduct of the defendant railroad company’s employees in removing plaintiff from the train and effectuating his arrest (see, Monnier v New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 175 NY 281). Where, as here, the facts leading up to the arrest are undisputed, the existence of probable cause is for the court to determine as a matter of law (Veras v Truth Verification Corp., 87 AD2d 381, 384, affd 57 NY2d 947).

Parness, J. P., Miller and McCooe, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered August 13, 1991 reversed, with $10 costs, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint dismissed.

The plaintiff’s admitted refusal to pay the one-way fare or leave the commuter train — conduct which resulted in a delay of approximately 25 minutes to the other passengers — provided a lawful basis to arrest plaintiff for disorderly conduct (see, Matter of Charles M., 143 AD2d 96) or theft of services (see, Burroughs v New York City Tr. Auth., 112 AD2d 186). That plaintiff may have felt aggrieved because monthly commutation tickets were unavailable for purchase on the day involved (a Sunday) does not render actionable the otherwise lawful conduct of the defendant railroad company’s employees in removing plaintiff from the train and effectuating his arrest (see, Monnier v New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 175 NY 281). Where, as here, the facts leading up to the arrest are undisputed, the existence of probable cause is for the court to determine as a matter of law (Veras v Truth Verification Corp., 87 AD2d 381, 384, affd 57 NY2d 947).

Parness, J. P., Miller and McCooe, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 Misc. 2d 1, 597 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-metro-north-commuter-railroad-nyappterm-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack