Solazzo v. New York City Transit Authority

New York Court of Appeals

Solazzo v. New York City Transit Authority

843 N.E.2d 748, 6 N.Y.3d 734, 810 N.Y.S.2d 121, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 3392

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by157 cases

This text of 843 N.E.2d 748 (Solazzo v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Solazzo v. New York City Transit Authority, 843 N.E.2d 748, 6 N.Y.3d 734, 810 N.Y.S.2d 121, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 3392 (N.Y. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

*735 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

A property owner will not be held liable in negligence for a plaintiffs injuries sustained as the result of an icy condition occurring during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter (see Valentine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 381, 383 [1st Dept 1982], affd 57 NY2d 932 [1982]). Here, it had been snowing, sleeting and raining on and off all day and the steps down into the subway were exposed to those weather conditions. Thus, summary judgment was properly granted in defendants’ favor.

Plaintiffs argue that the ongoing storm doctrine should not apply because his injury was caused by a recurring hazardous condition of which defendant Transit Authority was aware. A general awareness that the stairs and platforms become wet during inclement weather was insufficient to establish constructive notice of the specific condition causing plaintiffs injury (see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967, 969 [1994]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

*735 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

A property owner will not be held liable in negligence for a plaintiffs injuries sustained as the result of an icy condition occurring during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter (see Valentine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 381, 383 [1st Dept 1982], affd 57 NY2d 932 [1982]). Here, it had been snowing, sleeting and raining on and off all day and the steps down into the subway were exposed to those weather conditions. Thus, summary judgment was properly granted in defendants’ favor.

Plaintiffs argue that the ongoing storm doctrine should not apply because his injury was caused by a recurring hazardous condition of which defendant Transit Authority was aware. A general awareness that the stairs and platforms become wet during inclement weather was insufficient to establish constructive notice of the specific condition causing plaintiffs injury (see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967, 969 [1994]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

843 N.E.2d 748, 6 N.Y.3d 734, 810 N.Y.S.2d 121, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 3392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solazzo-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-ny-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack