Serfaty v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Serfaty v. New York City Transit Authority

254 A.D.2d 476, 679 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11258

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 476 (Serfaty 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

Serfaty v. New York City Transit Authority, 254 A.D.2d 476, 679 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated September 8, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The injured plaintiff sustained serious physical injuries as a result of being struck by a subway train. The injured plaintiff has no recollection of how the accident occurred, and the only evidence of causation is that provided by the motorman of the train, who observed the injured plaintiff dart out from behind a column directly in front of the moving train. The record conclusively demonstrates that the accident was unavoidable and that no negligence may be attributed to the motorman. Accordingly, the defendant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Winegrad, v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). The speculative and wholly conclusory opinion of the plaintiffs’ expert witness was insufficient to give rise to an issue of fact as to the defendant’s negligence (see, Abdullah v City of New York, 203 AD2d 397). Therefore, the defendant’s motion is granted. Bracken, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Santucci, 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, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated September 8, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The injured plaintiff sustained serious physical injuries as a result of being struck by a subway train. The injured plaintiff has no recollection of how the accident occurred, and the only evidence of causation is that provided by the motorman of the train, who observed the injured plaintiff dart out from behind a column directly in front of the moving train. The record conclusively demonstrates that the accident was unavoidable and that no negligence may be attributed to the motorman. Accordingly, the defendant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Winegrad, v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). The speculative and wholly conclusory opinion of the plaintiffs’ expert witness was insufficient to give rise to an issue of fact as to the defendant’s negligence (see, Abdullah v City of New York, 203 AD2d 397). Therefore, the defendant’s motion is granted. Bracken, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 476, 679 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/serfaty-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack