Shernov v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shernov v. New York City Transit Authority

79 A.D.2d 1021, 435 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9930

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 26, 1981·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals (by permission) from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated October 4, 1978, which (1) reversed a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered April 12, 1977, which, after a jury trial, was in favor of the plaintiff in the principal amount of $50,000, and (2) dismissed the complaint. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Appellate Term erred in holding that defendant, a common carrier, had no duty to take reasonable measures to protect plaintiff from injuries inflicted upon her by third persons (see Amoruso v New York City Tr. Auth., 12 AD2d 11; Prinz v City of New York, 98 Misc 2d 952). The complaint was properly dismissed, however, because plaintiff failed to establish that any breach of such duty by defendant was a proximate cause of her injuries (cf. Evers v Westerberg, 38 AD2d 951, 952, affd 32 NY2d 684). Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Rabin and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals (by permission) from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated October 4, 1978, which (1) reversed a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered April 12, 1977, which, after a jury trial, was in favor of the plaintiff in the principal amount of $50,000, and (2) dismissed the complaint. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Appellate Term erred in holding that defendant, a common carrier, had no duty to take reasonable measures to protect plaintiff from injuries inflicted upon her by third persons (see Amoruso v New York City Tr. Auth., 12 AD2d 11; Prinz v City of New York, 98 Misc 2d 952). The complaint was properly dismissed, however, because plaintiff failed to establish that any breach of such duty by defendant was a proximate cause of her injuries (cf. Evers v Westerberg, 38 AD2d 951, 952, affd 32 NY2d 684). Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Rabin and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Shernov v. New York City Transit Authority, 79 A.D.2d 1021, 435 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9930 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

79 A.D.2d 1021 (Shernov v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related