McFarlane v. City of New York

243 A.D.2d 691, 663 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10753
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 27, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 691 (McFarlane v. City of New York) 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
McFarlane v. City of New York, 243 A.D.2d 691, 663 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated December 6, 1996, which granted the plaintiffs motion to vacate her default in opposing its motion for summary judgment, and upon reargument of that motion, denied the motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs motion to vacate her default is denied, and the order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 20, 1996, granting the appellant’s motion for summary judgment on default is reinstated.

The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a defective portion of the roadway within a bus stop in Brooklyn. In order to vacate a default on a motion, the movant must establish that the default was excusable and that he or she has a meritorious action or defense (see, Capitol Distribs. Corp. v Church Ave. Wine & Liq., 204 AD2d 588). The plaintiff failed to establish that her cause of action against the appellant Transit Authority had merit since the City of New York, not the appellant, bears responsibility for the maintenance of bus stops within the City of New York (see, Coppersmith v City of New York, 194 AD2d 586; Dennis v City of New York, 216 AD2d 517). Although the plaintiff alleged that the appellant actually created the defect which caused her fall, the plaintiffs allegations were based simply on the normal operation of the appellant’s buses. Any responsibility to repair such a defect rested upon the City, not the appellant. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Fischer v. City of New York
2017 NY Slip Op 1340 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Methal v. City of New York
50 A.D.3d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Shaller v. City of New York
41 A.D.3d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Tanzer v. City of New York
41 A.D.3d 582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Gasis v. City of New York
35 A.D.3d 533 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Gomez v. Lotero
273 A.D.2d 198 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 A.D.2d 691, 663 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfarlane-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.