Williams v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. New York City Transit Authority

31 A.D.3d 631, 817 N.Y.S.2d 920

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 18, 2006·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated October 15, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict and for judg[632] ment as a matter of law. To grant a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, the trial court must conclude that there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational people to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]). Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that the space between the train and the subway platform into which she fell constituted negligence on the part of the defendant (see Ryan v Manhattan Ry. Co., 121 NY 126 [1890]; Lang v Interborough Rapid Tr. Co., 193 App Div 56 [1920]; Woolsey v Brooklyn Hgts. R.R. Co., 123 App Div 631 [1908]). Thus, the defendant’s motion was properly granted.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or are academic in light of our determination. Luciano, J.P., Rivera, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated October 15, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict and for judg[632] ment as a matter of law. To grant a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, the trial court must conclude that there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational people to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]). Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that the space between the train and the subway platform into which she fell constituted negligence on the part of the defendant (see Ryan v Manhattan Ry. Co., 121 NY 126 [1890]; Lang v Interborough Rapid Tr. Co., 193 App Div 56 [1920]; Woolsey v Brooklyn Hgts. R.R. Co., 123 App Div 631 [1908]). Thus, the defendant’s motion was properly granted.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or are academic in light of our determination. Luciano, J.P., Rivera, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.

Williams v. New York City Transit Authority, 31 A.D.3d 631, 817 N.Y.S.2d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

31 A.D.3d 631 (Williams v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related