Kamps v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kamps v. New York City Transit Authority

89 A.D.3d 421, 931 N.Y.2d 858

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 421 (Kamps 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

Kamps v. New York City Transit Authority, 89 A.D.3d 421, 931 N.Y.2d 858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff Lisa Ann Duac Kamps fell and was injured as she stepped from a square concrete platform that abutted a subway exit stairwell at the street level. Although the platform matched the sidewalk in color, the photographic evidence shows that its perimeter was daubed with yellow paint, faded at the front edge, yet particularly visible at the left and right margins. The [422]*422photographs also show that the platform ends are flush with the end of the subway enclosure and with the end of the handrail on the right side of the subway stairwell, indicating that it was part of the stairwell and not part of the sidewalk. In light of this evidence, which showed that the platform was not a dangerous trap that caused plaintiffs fall, defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing entitlement to summary judgment (see Remes v 513 W. 26th Realty, LLC, 73 AD3d 665, 666 [2010]; Burke v Canyon Rd. Rest, 60 AD3d 558, 559 [2009]).

In opposition, plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to show that the platform area created optical confusion so as to defeat defendants’ prima facie showing (compare Saretsky v 85 Kenmare Realty Corp., 85 AD3d 89, 92 [2011]; Chafoulias v 240 E. 55th St. Tenants Corp., 141 AD2d 207, 210-212 [1988]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

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

Plaintiff Lisa Ann Duac Kamps fell and was injured as she stepped from a square concrete platform that abutted a subway exit stairwell at the street level. Although the platform matched the sidewalk in color, the photographic evidence shows that its perimeter was daubed with yellow paint, faded at the front edge, yet particularly visible at the left and right margins. The [422]*422photographs also show that the platform ends are flush with the end of the subway enclosure and with the end of the handrail on the right side of the subway stairwell, indicating that it was part of the stairwell and not part of the sidewalk. In light of this evidence, which showed that the platform was not a dangerous trap that caused plaintiffs fall, defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing entitlement to summary judgment (see Remes v 513 W. 26th Realty, LLC, 73 AD3d 665, 666 [2010]; Burke v Canyon Rd. Rest, 60 AD3d 558, 559 [2009]).

In opposition, plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to show that the platform area created optical confusion so as to defeat defendants’ prima facie showing (compare Saretsky v 85 Kenmare Realty Corp., 85 AD3d 89, 92 [2011]; Chafoulias v 240 E. 55th St. Tenants Corp., 141 AD2d 207, 210-212 [1988]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 421, 931 N.Y.2d 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kamps-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack