Reeves v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reeves v. New York City Transit Authority

276 A.D.2d 543, 716 N.Y.S.2d 575, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10147

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 10, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated July 13, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the failure to sustain that initial burden requires the denial of the motion (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, it failed to sustain its burden of offering sufficient evidence as to the trivial nature of the alleged defect in the subway station flooring where the injured plaintiff fell (see, Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, McGinity and Luciano, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated July 13, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the failure to sustain that initial burden requires the denial of the motion (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, it failed to sustain its burden of offering sufficient evidence as to the trivial nature of the alleged defect in the subway station flooring where the injured plaintiff fell (see, Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Reeves v. New York City Transit Authority, 276 A.D.2d 543, 716 N.Y.S.2d 575, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 543 (Reeves v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related