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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 16, 2004·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

13 A.D.3d 170 (Motto v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related