Hayes v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayes v. New York City Transit Authority

16 A.D.3d 551, 790 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3018

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 551 (Hayes 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

Hayes v. New York City Transit Authority, 16 A.D.3d 551, 790 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated August 14, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendants New York City Transit Authority, MABSTOA, and Metropolitan Transit Authority, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondents.

In light of the decision of the Court of Appeals in Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]), we reverse the order of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s order was issued before Brill. The respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was made after the statutory deadline (see CPLR 3212 [a]), and the respondents failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for this delay (see Brill v City of New York, supra; Thompson v New York City Bd. of Educ., 10 AD3d 650, 651 [2004]). Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of the parties’ substantive claims. Adams, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated August 14, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendants New York City Transit Authority, MABSTOA, and Metropolitan Transit Authority, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondents.

In light of the decision of the Court of Appeals in Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]), we reverse the order of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s order was issued before Brill. The respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was made after the statutory deadline (see CPLR 3212 [a]), and the respondents failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for this delay (see Brill v City of New York, supra; Thompson v New York City Bd. of Educ., 10 AD3d 650, 651 [2004]). Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of the parties’ substantive claims. Adams, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 551, 790 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack