Martines v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martines v. New York City Transit Authority

251 A.D.2d 464, 673 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6852

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

DecidedJune 15, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 464 (Martines 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

Martines v. New York City Transit Authority, 251 A.D.2d 464, 673 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated June 2, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering evidence that it neither affirmatively created the alleged defect nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence (see, Mercer v City of New York, 223 AD2d 688, affd 88 NY2d 955; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). The plaintiffs opposition failed to create a triable issue of fact with respect to [465]*465these issues (see, Weber v Sekapi, Inc., 246 AD2d 644; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., 226 AD2d 590; Cipolla v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 215 AD2d 346). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated June 2, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering evidence that it neither affirmatively created the alleged defect nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence (see, Mercer v City of New York, 223 AD2d 688, affd 88 NY2d 955; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). The plaintiffs opposition failed to create a triable issue of fact with respect to [465]*465these issues (see, Weber v Sekapi, Inc., 246 AD2d 644; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., 226 AD2d 590; Cipolla v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 215 AD2d 346). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 464, 673 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martines-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack