Santiago v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santiago v. New York City Transit Authority

69 A.D.3d 530, 893 N.Y.2d 59

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 530 (Santiago 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

Santiago v. New York City Transit Authority, 69 A.D.3d 530, 893 N.Y.2d 59 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff, who was injured when she stumbled upon boarding a bus, claims that the bus operator was negligent in failing to lower the bus platform for her. The record establishes, however, that, before boarding, plaintiff (then 57 years old) did not ask the operator to lower the platform, and that she did not appear unable to negotiate the height differential between the curb and the bus platform. Under these circumstances, there was no duty to lower the platform (see Trainer v City of New York, 41 AD3d 202 [2007] [where disembarking 77-year-old passenger neither “request(ed) that the bus be lowered” nor “appeared incapable of negotiating the distance” between the bus and the street, “there was no duty to lower the (bus’) steps”]; see also Sabella v City of New York, 58 AD3d 712 [2009]; Carlino v Triboro Coach Corp., 22 AD3d 624 [2005]). In view of the foregoing, any discrepancy between plaintiff’s testimony and that of the bus operator concerning the height differential between the curb and the platform is immaterial. Concur — Friedman, J.P, Sweeny, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Plaintiff, who was injured when she stumbled upon boarding a bus, claims that the bus operator was negligent in failing to lower the bus platform for her. The record establishes, however, that, before boarding, plaintiff (then 57 years old) did not ask the operator to lower the platform, and that she did not appear unable to negotiate the height differential between the curb and the bus platform. Under these circumstances, there was no duty to lower the platform (see Trainer v City of New York, 41 AD3d 202 [2007] [where disembarking 77-year-old passenger neither “request(ed) that the bus be lowered” nor “appeared incapable of negotiating the distance” between the bus and the street, “there was no duty to lower the (bus’) steps”]; see also Sabella v City of New York, 58 AD3d 712 [2009]; Carlino v Triboro Coach Corp., 22 AD3d 624 [2005]). In view of the foregoing, any discrepancy between plaintiff’s testimony and that of the bus operator concerning the height differential between the curb and the platform is immaterial. Concur — Friedman, J.P, Sweeny, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 530, 893 N.Y.2d 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santiago-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack