Pena v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pena v. New York City Transit Authority

237 A.D.2d 150, 655 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2406

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 150 (Pena 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

Pena v. New York City Transit Authority, 237 A.D.2d 150, 655 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2406 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about January 25, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted because defendant had no duty to maintain the premises where the accident occurred. There is no merit to plaintiffs’ contention that the subject stairway’s sole function was to provide access to defendant’s subway station. The record establishes that the stairway was used in common by the stores in the passageway (compare, Garcia v Arbern Realty Co., 89 AD2d 616, with Haberlin v New York City Tr. Auth., 228 AD2d 383). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about January 25, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted because defendant had no duty to maintain the premises where the accident occurred. There is no merit to plaintiffs’ contention that the subject stairway’s sole function was to provide access to defendant’s subway station. The record establishes that the stairway was used in common by the stores in the passageway (compare, Garcia v Arbern Realty Co., 89 AD2d 616, with Haberlin v New York City Tr. Auth., 228 AD2d 383). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 150, 655 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pena-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack