Paul v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paul v. New York City Transit Authority

244 A.D.2d 322, 665 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11019

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 322 (Paul 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

Paul v. New York City Transit Authority, 244 A.D.2d 322, 665 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11019 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated September 30, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant summary judgment, as the record contained no evidence from which one could conclude that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition which allegedly caused the plaintiffs fall (see, Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837; Rosario v New York City Tr. Auth., 215 AD2d 364). Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated September 30, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant summary judgment, as the record contained no evidence from which one could conclude that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition which allegedly caused the plaintiffs fall (see, Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837; Rosario v New York City Tr. Auth., 215 AD2d 364). Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 322, 665 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack