Toner v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

71 A.D.3d 454, 894 N.Y.S.2d 873
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 9, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 454 (Toner v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.) 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
Toner v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 71 A.D.3d 454, 894 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinions

[455]*455Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered April 9, 2009, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Tom, J.P., and Manzanet-Daniels, J., concur in a separate memorandum by Tom, J.P., as follows:

Plaintiff slipped and fell at the bottom of a stairway at the 7th Avenue entrance to Penn Station at West 32nd Street in Manhattan. While the parties disputed whether it was raining at the time of the accident and whether warning signs were displayed, it was agreed that mats had been placed at the bottom of the staircase and that workers were mopping the floor. In opposition, plaintiff contended that defendants failed to take effective measures to remedy the hazardous condition by their positioning of the mats so as to leave an exposed area of floor at the foot of the stairs.

Defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (Pomahac v TrizecHahn 1065 Ave. of Ams., LLC, 65 AD3d 462, 464 [2009]). Plaintiffs contention that the mats were placed approximately three feet from the bottom of the staircase is insufficient to rebut this showing. The law imposes only the obligation to take reasonable measures to remedy a hazardous condition, and the failure to take any particular precaution which transcends that standard, even if customary, “cannot serve as a basis [for] liability” (id. at 466; see also Bernhard v Bank of Montreal, 41 AD3d 180 [2007]).

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

Related

Ramirez v. KBC Food Corp
2024 NY Slip Op 33551(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Robinson v. City of New York
2019 NY Slip Op 4649 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Kelly v. Roza 14W LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 6630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
O'Sullivan v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 5321 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Castlepoint Insurance v. Moore
105 A.D.3d 472 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 A.D.3d 454, 894 N.Y.S.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toner-v-national-railroad-passenger-corp-nyappdiv-2010.