Reid v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reid v. New York City Transit Authority

283 A.D.2d 414, 723 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4724

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 7, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated July 21, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff failed to rebut the prima facie showing made by [415] the defendant that it had not received actual or constructive notice of the snow and ice condition which allegedly caused her fall, or that an insufficient period of time had elapsed to allow the defendant to remedy any alleged dangerous conditions following the cessation of the storm (see, Madden v Village of Tarrytown, 266 AD2d 358; Robles v City of New York, 255 AD2d 305; Laster v Port Auth., 251 AD2d 204). In addition, the plaintiffs allegation that the accident may have resulted from a prior snowfall was purely speculative (see, Laster v Port Auth., supra; Urena v New York City Tr. Auth., 248 AD2d 377). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated July 21, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff failed to rebut the prima facie showing made by [415] the defendant that it had not received actual or constructive notice of the snow and ice condition which allegedly caused her fall, or that an insufficient period of time had elapsed to allow the defendant to remedy any alleged dangerous conditions following the cessation of the storm (see, Madden v Village of Tarrytown, 266 AD2d 358; Robles v City of New York, 255 AD2d 305; Laster v Port Auth., 251 AD2d 204). In addition, the plaintiffs allegation that the accident may have resulted from a prior snowfall was purely speculative (see, Laster v Port Auth., supra; Urena v New York City Tr. Auth., 248 AD2d 377). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Reid v. New York City Transit Authority, 283 A.D.2d 414, 723 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

283 A.D.2d 414 (Reid v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related