Takle v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Takle v. New York City Transit Authority

14 A.D.3d 608, 787 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 529

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 24, 2005·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Salvatore J. Marotta appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Knipel, J.), dated November 14, 2003, as denied their motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants New York City Transit Authority and Salvatore J. Marotta failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to how the subject incident occurred, whether Marotta was faced with an emergency situation and, if so, whether his actions were reasonable and prudent in that context (see Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327 [1991]; Gildersleeve v Leo, 21A AD2d 547 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, 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, etc., the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Salvatore J. Marotta appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Knipel, J.), dated November 14, 2003, as denied their motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants New York City Transit Authority and Salvatore J. Marotta failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to how the subject incident occurred, whether Marotta was faced with an emergency situation and, if so, whether his actions were reasonable and prudent in that context (see Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327 [1991]; Gildersleeve v Leo, 21A AD2d 547 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Takle v. New York City Transit Authority, 14 A.D.3d 608, 787 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

14 A.D.3d 608 (Takle v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related