Pytel v. New Jersey Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pytel v. New Jersey Transit Authority

267 A.D.2d 155, 700 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13202

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 21, 1999·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on or about October 6, 1998, inter alia, granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the court’s finding that the adult plaintiffs conduct in becoming intoxicated, ignoring “no trespassing” signs, jumping four or five feet from the train platform to enter a darkened recess under the platform, and going to sleep there, approximately one foot away from railroad tracks that plaintiff believed to be active, was so reckless as to constitute the sole legal cause of his injuries (see, Olsen v Town of Richfield, 81 NY2d 1024; see also, de Pena v New York City Tr. Auth., 236 AD2d 209, 210, lv denied 90 NY2d 808). Moreover, there is no support for plaintiffs claim that the train that struck him was negligently operated. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on or about October 6, 1998, inter alia, granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the court’s finding that the adult plaintiffs conduct in becoming intoxicated, ignoring “no trespassing” signs, jumping four or five feet from the train platform to enter a darkened recess under the platform, and going to sleep there, approximately one foot away from railroad tracks that plaintiff believed to be active, was so reckless as to constitute the sole legal cause of his injuries (see, Olsen v Town of Richfield, 81 NY2d 1024; see also, de Pena v New York City Tr. Auth., 236 AD2d 209, 210, lv denied 90 NY2d 808). Moreover, there is no support for plaintiffs claim that the train that struck him was negligently operated. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

Pytel v. New Jersey Transit Authority, 267 A.D.2d 155, 700 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

267 A.D.2d 155 (Pytel v. New Jersey Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related