Wehr v. Long Island Railroad

38 A.D.3d 880, 832 N.Y.S.2d 648
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 27, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 880 (Wehr v. Long Island Railroad) 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
Wehr v. Long Island Railroad, 38 A.D.3d 880, 832 N.Y.S.2d 648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), entered March 21, 2006, which, upon granting the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of the plaintiffs case, to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case, is in favor of the defendants and against her, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant has the burden of showing that there [881]*881is no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the plaintiff and against the moving defendant” (Velez v Goldenberg, 29 AD3d 780, 781 [2006]; see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]; Tapia v Dattco, Inc., 32 AD3d 842, 844 [2006]). “In considering the motion for judgment as a matter of law, the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant” (Szczerbiak v Pilat, supra at 556). Applying this standard, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion. The defendants had “ ‘no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, [was] not inherently dangerous’ ” (Fernandez v Edlund, 31 AD3d 601, 602 [2006], quoting Jang Hee Lee v Sung Whun Oh, 3 AD3d 473, 474 [2004]; see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48, 51-52 [2003]). Mastro, J.E, Florio, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kela Tennis, Inc. v. City of Mount Vernon
2026 NY Slip Op 00122 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
Temple-Ashram v. Satyanandji
142 A.D.3d 1132 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Sung Kyu-To v. Triangle Equities
84 A.D.3d 1058 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Delaney v. Delaney
83 A.D.3d 647 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Germain v. Irizarry
82 A.D.3d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Centennial Contractors Enterprises v. East New York Renovation Corp.
79 A.D.3d 690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 A.D.3d 880, 832 N.Y.S.2d 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wehr-v-long-island-railroad-nyappdiv-2007.