Weiters v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weiters v. City of New York

103 A.D.3d 509, 959 N.Y.S.2d 429

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 A.D.3d 509 (Weiters v. City of New York) 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

Weiters v. City of New York, 103 A.D.3d 509, 959 N.Y.S.2d 429 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, [510]*510J.), entered October 19, 2011, which denied defendant MTA Bus Company’s (MTA) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell on an allegedly defective roadway condition in the vicinity of a bus stop. Plaintiff asserts that MTA created the condition by its operation of buses on the subject roadway. MTA established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that it was not responsible for maintenance of the public roadways and that its use of the roadways does not constitute a “special use” (see Cabrera v City of New York, 45 AD3d 455, 456 [1st Dept 2007]; Towbin v City of New York, 309 AD2d 505 [1st Dept 2003]).

No triable issue of fact was raised in opposition as to whether MTA owed plaintiff any duty with regard to the roadway. Nor was the motion premature as plaintiff and defendant Riverbay Corporation failed to identify any outstanding discovery that was needed to oppose the motion (see e.g. Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152, 163-164 [1980]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, [510]*510J.), entered October 19, 2011, which denied defendant MTA Bus Company’s (MTA) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell on an allegedly defective roadway condition in the vicinity of a bus stop. Plaintiff asserts that MTA created the condition by its operation of buses on the subject roadway. MTA established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that it was not responsible for maintenance of the public roadways and that its use of the roadways does not constitute a “special use” (see Cabrera v City of New York, 45 AD3d 455, 456 [1st Dept 2007]; Towbin v City of New York, 309 AD2d 505 [1st Dept 2003]).

No triable issue of fact was raised in opposition as to whether MTA owed plaintiff any duty with regard to the roadway. Nor was the motion premature as plaintiff and defendant Riverbay Corporation failed to identify any outstanding discovery that was needed to oppose the motion (see e.g. Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152, 163-164 [1980]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.3d 509, 959 N.Y.S.2d 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiters-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack