Karanikas v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karanikas v. New York City Transit Authority

33 A.D.3d 451, 823 N.Y.S.2d 13

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 A.D.3d 451 (Karanikas 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

Karanikas v. New York City Transit Authority, 33 A.D.3d 451, 823 N.Y.S.2d 13 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[452]*452Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered August 23, 2005, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Transit Authority is not liable in negligence for a traveler’s injuries sustained in a fall on a slippery entranceway step due to an icy condition caused during an ongoing storm, or for a reasonable time thereafter (Solazzo v New York City Tr. Auth., 6 NY3d 734 [2005]). To the extent plaintiffs negligence claim is premised on an alleged defect in one of the steps, plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that the Transit Authority had actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

[452]*452Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered August 23, 2005, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Transit Authority is not liable in negligence for a traveler’s injuries sustained in a fall on a slippery entranceway step due to an icy condition caused during an ongoing storm, or for a reasonable time thereafter (Solazzo v New York City Tr. Auth., 6 NY3d 734 [2005]). To the extent plaintiffs negligence claim is premised on an alleged defect in one of the steps, plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that the Transit Authority had actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 451, 823 N.Y.S.2d 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karanikas-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack