Haelein v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haelein v. New York City Transit Authority

262 A.D.2d 208, 691 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7401

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

DecidedJune 22, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 208 (Haelein 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

Haelein v. New York City Transit Authority, 262 A.D.2d 208, 691 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered [209]*209on or about March 19, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The deposition testimony of plaintiff and defendant’s witness does not establish, as a matter of law, the absence of circumstances upon which defendant would be chargeable with constructive notice of the debris that is alleged to have caused plaintiff’s fall. Defendant has not established, as it must in order to obtain summary judgment, that plaintiff will be unable to satisfy her burden at trial of proving the existence of a dangerous condition that caused the accident. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, 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 [209]*209on or about March 19, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The deposition testimony of plaintiff and defendant’s witness does not establish, as a matter of law, the absence of circumstances upon which defendant would be chargeable with constructive notice of the debris that is alleged to have caused plaintiff’s fall. Defendant has not established, as it must in order to obtain summary judgment, that plaintiff will be unable to satisfy her burden at trial of proving the existence of a dangerous condition that caused the accident. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 208, 691 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haelein-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1999.