Wright v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wright v. New York City Transit Authority

309 A.D.2d 800, 765 N.Y.S.2d 521

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 800 (Wright 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

Wright v. New York City Transit Authority, 309 A.D.2d 800, 765 N.Y.S.2d 521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated July 16, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

As the party seeking summary judgment, the defendant had the affirmative burden of demonstrating its entitlement thereto as a matter of law (see Sutherland v Whylie, 292 AD2d 518 [2002]; Smith v AT&T Resource Mgt. Corp., 259 AD2d 480 [1999]). The defendant satisfied that burden by establishing, inter alia, the absence of any defective condition in the area of the subway car from which the injured plaintiff fell. Rather, [801]*801the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the injured plaintiffs fall was directly the result of her medical condition. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine triable issues of material fact. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion should have been granted.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, S. Miller and Luciano, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated July 16, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

As the party seeking summary judgment, the defendant had the affirmative burden of demonstrating its entitlement thereto as a matter of law (see Sutherland v Whylie, 292 AD2d 518 [2002]; Smith v AT&T Resource Mgt. Corp., 259 AD2d 480 [1999]). The defendant satisfied that burden by establishing, inter alia, the absence of any defective condition in the area of the subway car from which the injured plaintiff fell. Rather, [801]*801the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the injured plaintiffs fall was directly the result of her medical condition. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine triable issues of material fact. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion should have been granted.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, S. Miller and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 800, 765 N.Y.S.2d 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack