Gordzica v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gordzica v. New York City Transit Authority

103 A.D.3d 598, 960 N.Y.S.2d 103

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.3d 598 (Gordzica 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

Gordzica v. New York City Transit Authority, 103 A.D.3d 598, 960 N.Y.S.2d 103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered July 18, 2011, upon a jury verdict, awarding plaintiff the principal amount of $1,040,000, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The court erred in admitting the alleged statement made by defendant’s ticket booth clerk to plaintiff that she had reported the defective condition six times prior to plaintiffs trip and fall. The evidence does not show that the statement was made within the clerk’s authority as a speaking agent on behalf of defendant (see Tyrrell v Wal-Mart Stores, 97 NY2d 650 [2001]; Loschiavo v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 58 NY2d 1040 [1983]). The error in admitting the statement was not harmless under the circumstances presented. Concur—Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, AbdusSalaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered July 18, 2011, upon a jury verdict, awarding plaintiff the principal amount of $1,040,000, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The court erred in admitting the alleged statement made by defendant’s ticket booth clerk to plaintiff that she had reported the defective condition six times prior to plaintiffs trip and fall. The evidence does not show that the statement was made within the clerk’s authority as a speaking agent on behalf of defendant (see Tyrrell v Wal-Mart Stores, 97 NY2d 650 [2001]; Loschiavo v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 58 NY2d 1040 [1983]). The error in admitting the statement was not harmless under the circumstances presented. Concur—Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, AbdusSalaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.3d 598, 960 N.Y.S.2d 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordzica-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack