Nayman v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nayman v. New York City Transit Authority

25 A.D.3d 376, 808 N.Y.S.2d 651

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 25 A.D.3d 376 (Nayman 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

Nayman v. New York City Transit Authority, 25 A.D.3d 376, 808 N.Y.S.2d 651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered March 30, 2004, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if the storm that resulted in the complained-of hazard had stopped by the time of plaintiffs accident, it is clear from plaintiffs testimony that the period of cessation was only about one hour, an interval too brief to have given rise to a legally enforceable duty on defendant’s part to remediate the hazard (see Valentine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 381 [1982], affd 57 NY2d 932 [1982]; and see e.g. Urena v New York City Tr. Auth., 248 AD2d 377 [1998]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, 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 March 30, 2004, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if the storm that resulted in the complained-of hazard had stopped by the time of plaintiffs accident, it is clear from plaintiffs testimony that the period of cessation was only about one hour, an interval too brief to have given rise to a legally enforceable duty on defendant’s part to remediate the hazard (see Valentine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 381 [1982], affd 57 NY2d 932 [1982]; and see e.g. Urena v New York City Tr. Auth., 248 AD2d 377 [1998]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 376, 808 N.Y.S.2d 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nayman-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack