Streich v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Streich v. New York City Transit Authority

305 A.D.2d 221, 758 N.Y.S.2d 489, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5545

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

DecidedMay 15, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 221 (Streich 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

Streich v. New York City Transit Authority, 305 A.D.2d 221, 758 N.Y.S.2d 489, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5545 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered April 27, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff Joseph Streich $100,000 for past pain and suffering and $300,000 for future pain and suffering (structured pursuant to CPLR art 50-B), unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, and the matter remanded for a new trial, unless plaintiff stipulates, within 20 days of service of a copy of this order with [222]*222notice of entry, to attribute 25% of the fault for his injuries to his own negligence and to reduce the award of damages accordingly pursuant to CPLR article 14-A, and to entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith.

Plaintiff sustained a fractured ankle when he slipped while walking down a wet stairway at defendant’s subway station. Plaintiff, who contended that the stairs were unreasonably dangerous when wet because of their worn and chipped condition, was not holding onto the wet stairway’s handrail when he fell. The jury unanimously found that plaintiff had descended the stairway in a negligent manner, but found, with one dissent, that plaintiff’s negligence had not been a substantial factor in the causation of the accident. Based on our review of the trial record, we find the verdict to be against the manifest weight of the evidence to the extent it determines that plaintiff’s negligence did not play any role in causing his injuries. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial, unless plaintiff stipulates to entry of an amended judgment as indicated.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing on this record. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered April 27, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff Joseph Streich $100,000 for past pain and suffering and $300,000 for future pain and suffering (structured pursuant to CPLR art 50-B), unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, and the matter remanded for a new trial, unless plaintiff stipulates, within 20 days of service of a copy of this order with [222]*222notice of entry, to attribute 25% of the fault for his injuries to his own negligence and to reduce the award of damages accordingly pursuant to CPLR article 14-A, and to entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith.

Plaintiff sustained a fractured ankle when he slipped while walking down a wet stairway at defendant’s subway station. Plaintiff, who contended that the stairs were unreasonably dangerous when wet because of their worn and chipped condition, was not holding onto the wet stairway’s handrail when he fell. The jury unanimously found that plaintiff had descended the stairway in a negligent manner, but found, with one dissent, that plaintiff’s negligence had not been a substantial factor in the causation of the accident. Based on our review of the trial record, we find the verdict to be against the manifest weight of the evidence to the extent it determines that plaintiff’s negligence did not play any role in causing his injuries. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial, unless plaintiff stipulates to entry of an amended judgment as indicated.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing on this record. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 221, 758 N.Y.S.2d 489, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/streich-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack