Perez v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. New York City Transit Authority

289 A.D.2d 119, 735 N.Y.S.2d 38, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12283

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 119 (Perez 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

Perez v. New York City Transit Authority, 289 A.D.2d 119, 735 N.Y.S.2d 38, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order [120]*120and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J., and a jury), entered July 20, 2000, in an action for personal injuries, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Transit Authority, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject defendant’s argument that the record does not support the finding that it had notice of the defective condition of the subway grate that caused plaintiff’s trip and fall. An inference of such notice can be fairly drawn from the inspection report dated more than a year and a half prior to the accident indicating that the subway grating in the area of the accident was in need of repair, and the testimony of defendant’s employee that there is no record of any repairs or further inspections having been performed in the area during that year and a half (see, O’Connor-Miele v Barhite & Holzinger, 234 AD2d 106). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order [120]*120and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J., and a jury), entered July 20, 2000, in an action for personal injuries, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Transit Authority, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject defendant’s argument that the record does not support the finding that it had notice of the defective condition of the subway grate that caused plaintiff’s trip and fall. An inference of such notice can be fairly drawn from the inspection report dated more than a year and a half prior to the accident indicating that the subway grating in the area of the accident was in need of repair, and the testimony of defendant’s employee that there is no record of any repairs or further inspections having been performed in the area during that year and a half (see, O’Connor-Miele v Barhite & Holzinger, 234 AD2d 106). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 119, 735 N.Y.S.2d 38, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack