Verdon v. New York City Transit Authority

92 A.D.2d 465, 459 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16661
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 92 A.D.2d 465 (Verdon 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
Verdon v. New York City Transit Authority, 92 A.D.2d 465, 459 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cerrito, J.), entered July 7, 1982, which granted petitioner’s application for [466]*466disclosure of information necessary to frame a complaint and directed defendant to furnish, inter alla, reports of defendant’s employees, statements of witnesses and photographs, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and the application is dismissed, without costs. At approximately 10:30 a.m. on February 4, 1982 the petitioner was a passenger on a southbound “A” train. This train made an unscheduled stop at the Spring Street subway station in Manhattan. Then, as the petitioner was crossing between cars, the train abruptly restarted. This sudden movement caused petitioner to be thrown from the train and onto the tracks. Thereafter, petitioner suffered injuries, which resulted in the traumatic amputation of his right leg. The petitioner timely filed a notice of claim with the defendant New York City Transit Authority. Now he has made application for preaction disclosure, pursuant to CPLR 3102 (subd [c]). Our examination of this notice of claim leads us to conclude that “[sjince [petitioner] has demonstrated he possesses sufficient information to enable him to frame a complaint, the preaction disclosure he seeks is unavailable to him” (Matter of Ryan v Marsh & McLennan Int., 70 AD2d 567). Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Fein and Kassal, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Neham v. New York City Tr. Auth.
202 A.D.3d 965 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Camara v. Skanska, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 4057 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Walker v. Sandberg & Sikorski Corp.
125 A.D.3d 480 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Hoffman v. Batridge
155 Misc. 2d 862 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
In re Singh
149 Misc. 2d 365 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1990)
In re Loria
98 A.D.2d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 A.D.2d 465, 459 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verdon-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1983.