Zenteno v. MTA Long Island Rail Road

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zenteno v. MTA Long Island Rail Road

71 A.D.3d 673, 894 N.Y.S.2d 897

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 673 (Zenteno v. MTA Long Island Rail Road) 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

Zenteno v. MTA Long Island Rail Road, 71 A.D.3d 673, 894 N.Y.S.2d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated March 31, 2009, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff was reckless, and that his recklessness was the sole proximate cause of his injuries (see Wadhwa v Long Is. R.R., 13 AD3d 615 [2004]; Lassalle v New York City Tr. Auth., 11 AD3d 661 [2004]; Mooney v Long Is. R.R., 305 AD2d 560 [2003]; Gao Yi Feng v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 285 AD2d 447, 447-448 [2001]; cf. Brown v Long Is. R.R., 304 AD2d 601, 601-602 [2003]). Since, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Sgroi, 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, Queens County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated March 31, 2009, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff was reckless, and that his recklessness was the sole proximate cause of his injuries (see Wadhwa v Long Is. R.R., 13 AD3d 615 [2004]; Lassalle v New York City Tr. Auth., 11 AD3d 661 [2004]; Mooney v Long Is. R.R., 305 AD2d 560 [2003]; Gao Yi Feng v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 285 AD2d 447, 447-448 [2001]; cf. Brown v Long Is. R.R., 304 AD2d 601, 601-602 [2003]). Since, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 673, 894 N.Y.S.2d 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zenteno-v-mta-long-island-rail-road-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack