Motto v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Motto v. New York City Transit Authority

13 A.D.3d 170, 785 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15347

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 170 (Motto 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

Motto v. New York City Transit Authority, 13 A.D.3d 170, 785 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered November 28, 2003, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although there were no witnesses to the accident, the circumstantial evidence indicates that plaintiffs decedent died when he fell from between cars of a moving subway train. Although plaintiff attributes the decedent’s fall to defendant’s failure to take adequate safety precautions to protect passengers moving between cars, the cause of the decedent’s fall is on this record a matter for pure speculation and, accordingly, no triable issue has been raised as to whether responsibility for the fall and its sequelae may be placed upon defendant or its employees (see Thomas v New York City Tr. Auth., 194 AD2d 663, 664 [1993]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Lerner, Friedman, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered November 28, 2003, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although there were no witnesses to the accident, the circumstantial evidence indicates that plaintiffs decedent died when he fell from between cars of a moving subway train. Although plaintiff attributes the decedent’s fall to defendant’s failure to take adequate safety precautions to protect passengers moving between cars, the cause of the decedent’s fall is on this record a matter for pure speculation and, accordingly, no triable issue has been raised as to whether responsibility for the fall and its sequelae may be placed upon defendant or its employees (see Thomas v New York City Tr. Auth., 194 AD2d 663, 664 [1993]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Lerner, Friedman, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 170, 785 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/motto-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack