Harwin v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harwin v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

45 A.D.3d 488, 847 N.Y.S.2d 35

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 488 (Harwin v. Metropolitan Transportation 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

Harwin v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 45 A.D.3d 488, 847 N.Y.S.2d 35 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[489]*489Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered October 25, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion to set aside the jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly set aside the verdict and dismissed the complaint on the basis that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against defendants in this matter, where plaintiff was injured when she was caused to fall when the subway car that she had just boarded departed the station in an allegedly sudden manner. Plaintiffs description of the incident at trial and the nature of her injuries were not sufficient to satisfy her requirement of showing that the train’s departure from the station “caused a jerk or lurch that was ‘unusual and violent’ ” (Urquhart v New York City Tr. Auth., 85 NY2d 828, 830 [1995], quoting Trudell v New York R.T. Corp., 281 NY 82, 85 [1939]). Rather, the record evidence demonstrates that plaintiff did not observe any other passenger fall, no other person is known to have complained about the movement of the subway car at the time of her fall, and plaintiff, who fell forward rather than backward, did not fall a significant distance (see Golub v New York City Tr. Auth., 40 AD3d 581, 582 [2007]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Nardelli, Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[489]*489Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered October 25, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion to set aside the jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly set aside the verdict and dismissed the complaint on the basis that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against defendants in this matter, where plaintiff was injured when she was caused to fall when the subway car that she had just boarded departed the station in an allegedly sudden manner. Plaintiffs description of the incident at trial and the nature of her injuries were not sufficient to satisfy her requirement of showing that the train’s departure from the station “caused a jerk or lurch that was ‘unusual and violent’ ” (Urquhart v New York City Tr. Auth., 85 NY2d 828, 830 [1995], quoting Trudell v New York R.T. Corp., 281 NY 82, 85 [1939]). Rather, the record evidence demonstrates that plaintiff did not observe any other passenger fall, no other person is known to have complained about the movement of the subway car at the time of her fall, and plaintiff, who fell forward rather than backward, did not fall a significant distance (see Golub v New York City Tr. Auth., 40 AD3d 581, 582 [2007]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Nardelli, Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 488, 847 N.Y.S.2d 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harwin-v-metropolitan-transportation-authority-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack