Haberlin v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haberlin v. New York City Transit Authority

210 A.D.2d 122, 621 N.Y.S.2d 843

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 122 (Haberlin 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

Haberlin v. New York City Transit Authority, 210 A.D.2d 122, 621 N.Y.S.2d 843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered November 23, 1993, which denied defendant New York City Transit Authority’s ("NYCTA”) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and ordered an examination before trial of its employee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is a question of fact as to the precise location of plaintiff’s accident and the condition of the location, which may be within the knowledge of the NYCTA employee who was present at the time of the occurrence even though she did not witness it. . Under these circumstances, summary judgment is. premature and the plaintiff should be allowed to examine the NYCTA employee. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Asch, 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 November 23, 1993, which denied defendant New York City Transit Authority’s ("NYCTA”) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and ordered an examination before trial of its employee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is a question of fact as to the precise location of plaintiff’s accident and the condition of the location, which may be within the knowledge of the NYCTA employee who was present at the time of the occurrence even though she did not witness it. . Under these circumstances, summary judgment is. premature and the plaintiff should be allowed to examine the NYCTA employee. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 122, 621 N.Y.S.2d 843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haberlin-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1994.