Hsieh v. New York City Transit Authority

216 A.D.2d 531, 628 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7081
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 26, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 531 (Hsieh 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
Hsieh v. New York City Transit Authority, 216 A.D.2d 531, 628 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7081 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated July 8, 1994, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured while riding down an escalator at a Brooklyn subway station. The accident occurred when someone in front of the plaintiff fell and the other passengers on the escalator, including the plaintiff, also fell, one after another. The plaintiff contends that the defendant was negligent in causing and permitting a large crowd to congregate on the escalator and in failing to provide adequate supervision at the site of the accident.

With regard to the contention that the defendant created an overcrowded condition, the plaintiff testified at his examination before trial that there were only four or five people on the escalator in front of him and approximately one hundred people behind him either on or waiting to get on the escalator. There is no evidence in the record that the plaintiffs freedom of movement was unduly restricted by the crowd or that the crowd was unruly and unmanageable to the extent necessary to impose liability on the defendant (see, Palermo v New York City Tr. Auth., 141 AD2d 809; Coppersmith v City of New York, 194 AD2d 586). Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to support the plaintiffs contention that the defendant negli[532]*532gently failed to provide adequate supervision at the site of the accident. Under these circumstances, the defendant is not liable for the plaintiffs injuries. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Garcia v. New York City Transit Authority
114 A.D.3d 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Ganapolsky v. Barnes & Noble
297 A.D.2d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Sawyer v. Wight
196 F. Supp. 2d 220 (E.D. New York, 2002)
Gordon v. New York City Transit Authority
267 A.D.2d 201 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Palmieri v. Ringling Bros.
237 A.D.2d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Alpi v. Long Island Rail Road
223 A.D.2d 662 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 A.D.2d 531, 628 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hsieh-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1995.