Valladares v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valladares v. New York City Transit Authority

208 A.D.2d 471, 617 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10554

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 471 (Valladares 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

Valladares v. New York City Transit Authority, 208 A.D.2d 471, 617 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about June 11, 1993, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted in light of defendant’s introduction of an easement agreement entered into between it and the owner of the stairway where plaintiff fell, together with affidavits from its own engineer, which indicate that defendant neither owned nor maintained the stairway in question. Plaintiff’s belated reliance upon Fortson v New York City Tr. Auth. (111 AD2d 58), claiming, for the first time on appeal, that the stairway’s sole purpose was for access to and from the subway system, may not be considered (Recovery Consultants v Shih-Hsieh, 141 AD2d 272, 276). Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about June 11, 1993, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted in light of defendant’s introduction of an easement agreement entered into between it and the owner of the stairway where plaintiff fell, together with affidavits from its own engineer, which indicate that defendant neither owned nor maintained the stairway in question. Plaintiff’s belated reliance upon Fortson v New York City Tr. Auth. (111 AD2d 58), claiming, for the first time on appeal, that the stairway’s sole purpose was for access to and from the subway system, may not be considered (Recovery Consultants v Shih-Hsieh, 141 AD2d 272, 276). Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 471, 617 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valladares-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack