Occean v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Occean v. City of New York

278 A.D.2d 211, 717 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12519

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 4, 2000·Published

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 (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 6, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, as there is no evidence that it created or had actual notice of the alleged dangerous condition, or that [212]*212the condition was visible, apparent, and existed for a sufficient length of time to provide constructive notice (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Ortega v New York City Tr. Auth., 262 AD2d 470; Rosario v New York City Tr. Auth., 215 AD2d 364). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, 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 defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 6, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, as there is no evidence that it created or had actual notice of the alleged dangerous condition, or that [212]*212the condition was visible, apparent, and existed for a sufficient length of time to provide constructive notice (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Ortega v New York City Tr. Auth., 262 AD2d 470; Rosario v New York City Tr. Auth., 215 AD2d 364). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Occean v. City of New York, 278 A.D.2d 211, 717 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

278 A.D.2d 211 (Occean v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related