Pagan v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pagan v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

105 A.D.3d 611, 963 N.Y.S.2d 256

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

DecidedApril 23, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 611 (Pagan v. Metropolitan Transportation 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

Pagan v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 105 A.D.3d 611, 963 N.Y.S.2d 256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered August 1, 2012, which, in this personal injury action arising from plaintiffs alleged slip and fall on water on the floor of defendant Metro-North Railroad’s train, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether defendant’s employee created the alleged hazardous condition by leaving an end door open, allowing rainwater to enter the subject car. Under the circumstances, the fact that it was raining at the time of the incident is not a defense to liability (see Cook v Rezende, 32 NY2d 596, 599 [1973]). Defendants failed to preserve their contention that plaintiffs affidavit submitted in opposition to their motion created a feigned issue of fact. In any event, the motion court properly considered the affidavit because it does not contradict plaintiffs prior testimony, but rather amplifies it (see Castro v New York City Tr. Auth., 52 AD3d 213, 214 [1st Dept 2008]).

Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered August 1, 2012, which, in this personal injury action arising from plaintiffs alleged slip and fall on water on the floor of defendant Metro-North Railroad’s train, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether defendant’s employee created the alleged hazardous condition by leaving an end door open, allowing rainwater to enter the subject car. Under the circumstances, the fact that it was raining at the time of the incident is not a defense to liability (see Cook v Rezende, 32 NY2d 596, 599 [1973]). Defendants failed to preserve their contention that plaintiffs affidavit submitted in opposition to their motion created a feigned issue of fact. In any event, the motion court properly considered the affidavit because it does not contradict plaintiffs prior testimony, but rather amplifies it (see Castro v New York City Tr. Auth., 52 AD3d 213, 214 [1st Dept 2008]).

Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 611, 963 N.Y.S.2d 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pagan-v-metropolitan-transportation-authority-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack