Gonzalez v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. New York City Transit Authority

264 A.D.2d 757, 696 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9165

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 757 (Gonzalez 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

Gonzalez v. New York City Transit Authority, 264 A.D.2d 757, 696 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9165 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated September 1, 1998, as, upon reargument of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, adhered to its prior determination in an order dated January 23, 1998, granting the defendant’s motion.

[758]*758Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar, as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff was injured when he allegedly slipped and fell on an icy train platform maintained by the defendant. We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Urena v New York City Tr. Auth., 248 AD2d 377; Fuks v New York City Tr. Auth., 243 AD2d 678). Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated September 1, 1998, as, upon reargument of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, adhered to its prior determination in an order dated January 23, 1998, granting the defendant’s motion.

[758]*758Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar, as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff was injured when he allegedly slipped and fell on an icy train platform maintained by the defendant. We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Urena v New York City Tr. Auth., 248 AD2d 377; Fuks v New York City Tr. Auth., 243 AD2d 678). Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 757, 696 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack