Ortiz v. Long Island Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. Long Island Railroad

270 A.D.2d 400, 705 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3044

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 20, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an ac[401] tion to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated April 13, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendants Long Island Railroad and Metropolitan Transportation Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on an icy stairway at the Kew Gardens Station of the respondent Long Island Railroad during a rainstorm. Where, as here, an accident occurs while precipitation is in progress, a defendant may not be held liable for failure to clear the condition (see, Baum v Knoll Farm, 259 AD2d 456; Kay v Flying Goose, 203 AD2d 332). The Supreme Court therefore properly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an ac[401] tion to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated April 13, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendants Long Island Railroad and Metropolitan Transportation Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on an icy stairway at the Kew Gardens Station of the respondent Long Island Railroad during a rainstorm. Where, as here, an accident occurs while precipitation is in progress, a defendant may not be held liable for failure to clear the condition (see, Baum v Knoll Farm, 259 AD2d 456; Kay v Flying Goose, 203 AD2d 332). The Supreme Court therefore properly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Ortiz v. Long Island Railroad, 270 A.D.2d 400, 705 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

270 A.D.2d 400 (Ortiz v. Long Island Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related