Sosa v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sosa v. New York City Transit Authority

280 A.D.2d 464, 719 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1186

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 464 (Sosa 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

Sosa v. New York City Transit Authority, 280 A.D.2d 464, 719 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated July 20, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[465]*465To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., 226 AD2d 590). Here, in the absence of proof as to how long the potato chip bag which allegedly caused the plaintiffs fall was on the stairway, there is no evidence to permit an inference that the defendant had constructive notice of the condition in question (see, McDuffie v Fleet Fin. Group, 269 AD2d 575; Paciello v May Dept. Stores Co., 263 AD2d 533; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., supra). Accordingly, the defendant made a prima facie showing of the absence of notice as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to show the existence of a triable issue of fact. Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated July 20, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[465]*465To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., 226 AD2d 590). Here, in the absence of proof as to how long the potato chip bag which allegedly caused the plaintiffs fall was on the stairway, there is no evidence to permit an inference that the defendant had constructive notice of the condition in question (see, McDuffie v Fleet Fin. Group, 269 AD2d 575; Paciello v May Dept. Stores Co., 263 AD2d 533; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., supra). Accordingly, the defendant made a prima facie showing of the absence of notice as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to show the existence of a triable issue of fact. Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 464, 719 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sosa-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack