Rosario v. New York City Transit Authority

8 A.D.3d 147, 778 N.Y.S.2d 281, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8656

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: June 22, 2004
• Status: Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered on or about August 26, 2003, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant, by adducing evidence that it had no notice of the alleged hazard, i.e., a bottle covered with newspaper discarded on subway station stairs, carried its burden as summary judgment movant to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment, and plaintiff failed to meet its consequent burden to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (cf. Giuffrida v Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co., 279 AD2d 403 [2001]). Although plaintiffs urge that the motion be denied to permit additional discovery, they have advanced no nonspeculative basis to believe that additional discovery might yield evidence warranting a different disposition (see Hernandez v Yonkers Contr. Co., 292 AD2d 422, 424 [2002]). Concur— Buckley, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.