Johnson v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. New York City Transit Authority

301 A.D.2d 431, 752 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 297

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 16, 2003·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered February 15, 2002, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff slipped on a puddle allegedly formed by water dripping from an awning overhanging subway steps, denied motions by defendant Transit Authority and defendant owners of the building to which the awning was attached dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming the building owners cannot be held liable unless the awning constituted a significant structural defect, an issue of fact exists in that regard raised by the location of the awning relative to the subway steps (see Abreu v Nokit Realty Corp., 288 AD2d 26). Issues of fact also exist as to, inter alia, whether the puddle on the steps was caused by water dripping from the awning and whether defendants had notice of the alleged dangerous propensity of the awning to drip water onto the steps. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, 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 February 15, 2002, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff slipped on a puddle allegedly formed by water dripping from an awning overhanging subway steps, denied motions by defendant Transit Authority and defendant owners of the building to which the awning was attached dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming the building owners cannot be held liable unless the awning constituted a significant structural defect, an issue of fact exists in that regard raised by the location of the awning relative to the subway steps (see Abreu v Nokit Realty Corp., 288 AD2d 26). Issues of fact also exist as to, inter alia, whether the puddle on the steps was caused by water dripping from the awning and whether defendants had notice of the alleged dangerous propensity of the awning to drip water onto the steps. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Johnson v. New York City Transit Authority, 301 A.D.2d 431, 752 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

301 A.D.2d 431 (Johnson v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related