Wade v. New York City Transit Authority

5 A.D.3d 474, 773 N.Y.S.2d 98

This text of 5 A.D.3d 474 (Wade 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
Wade v. New York City Transit Authority, 5 A.D.3d 474, 773 N.Y.S.2d 98 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the [475]*475plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated August 6, 2002, which, upon granting the defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment, granted the defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On October 8,1986, the injured plaintiff, James Wade II (hereinafter the plaintiff), who was then 13 years old, fell while riding on the outside of one of the defendant’s buses. The plaintiff now claims that the driver of the bus was aware of his presence on the outside of the bus and that the proximate cause of his injuries was the driver’s negligence in traveling at an excessive rate of speed and acceleration under these circumstances.

The defendant moved for an extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment and, if granted, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that assumption of the risk barred recovery and that it owed no duty to the plaintiff, whose conduct was not reasonably foreseeable. The Supreme Court properly granted the extension, and under the circumstances of this case, properly granted summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint (cf. Dominguez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 46 NY2d 528 [1979]). The defendant met its initial burden of showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Dominguez v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority
388 N.E.2d 1221 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 A.D.3d 474, 773 N.Y.S.2d 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wade-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2004.