Izhak v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Izhak v. New York City Transit Authority

19 A.D.3d 369, 795 N.Y.S.2d 910

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

DecidedJune 6, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.3d 369 (Izhak 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

Izhak v. New York City Transit Authority, 19 A.D.3d 369, 795 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), entered April 1, 2004, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss the complaint, made at the close of the plaintiffs case, is in favor of the defendant and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, as there was no rational process by which the jury could base a finding in their favor (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 [1978]). Dismissal was proper since the plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie case that the defendant had constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition which caused the injured plaintiff to slip and fall (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.E, Schmidt, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), entered April 1, 2004, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss the complaint, made at the close of the plaintiffs case, is in favor of the defendant and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, as there was no rational process by which the jury could base a finding in their favor (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 [1978]). Dismissal was proper since the plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie case that the defendant had constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition which caused the injured plaintiff to slip and fall (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.E, Schmidt, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 369, 795 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/izhak-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack