From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fuks v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 1997
243 A.D.2d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Summary

In Fuks, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment when plaintiff's fall occurred only an hour after the cessation of a 10 inch snowfall (id. at 678).

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. City of Hous.

Opinion

October 27, 1997

Appeal from Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Leonid Fuks was injured when he allegedly slipped and fell on an icy and snow-covered stairway while descending from an elevated train platform at 9:20 A.M. on February 9, 1994, after approximately 10 inches of snow had fallen overnight. The defendant submitted climatological reports from nearby areas which showed that the precipitation had ended at 8:00 A.M. on February 9, 1994. "It is well settled that a person responsible for maintaining property is not under a duty to remove ice and snow until a reasonable time after the cessation of the storm" ( Drake v. Prudential Ins. CO., 153 A.D.2d 924, 925). Under the facts of this case, the defendant established, as a matter of law, that it did not have a reasonably adequate opportunity after the storm ended to take protective measures ( see, e.g. Wall v. Village of Mineola 237 A.D.2d 511; Kay v. Flying Goose 203 A.D.2d 332; Arcuri v Vitolo 196 A.D.2d 519; Flanagan v. City of New York 243 A.D.2d 677 [decided herewith]).

Furthermore, the injured plaintiff's claim that he slipped on ice under the snow is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence in the absence of any proof of the origin of the icy condition or proof that the defendant had notice or sufficient time to remedy the condition ( see, Simmons v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d 972; Bernstein v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 1020; Grillo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 214 A.D.2d 648).

Miller, J.P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fuks v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 1997
243 A.D.2d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

In Fuks, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment when plaintiff's fall occurred only an hour after the cessation of a 10 inch snowfall (id. at 678).

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. City of Hous.

In Fuks, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment when plaintiff's fall occurred only an hour after the cessation of a 10 inch snowfall (id. at 678).

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. City of N.Y.

In Fuks, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment when plaintiff's fall occurred only an hour after the cessation of a 10 inch snowfall (id. at 678).

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. City of Hous.

In Fuks, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment when plaintiff's fall occurred only an hour after the cessation of a 10 inch snowfall (id. at 678).

Summary of this case from Baez v. Glavatovic

In Fuks, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment when plaintiff's fall occurred only an hour after the cessation of a 10 inch snowfall (id. at 678).

Summary of this case from Baez v. Glavatovic

In Fuks, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment when plaintiff's fall occurred only an hour after the cessation of a 10 inch snowfall (id. at 678).

Summary of this case from Baez v. Glavatovic

In Fuks, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment when plaintiff's fall occurred only an hour after the cessation of a 10 inch snowfall (id. at 678).

Summary of this case from Baez v. Glavatovic

In Fuks, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment when plaintiff's fall occurred only an hour after the cessation of a 10 inch snowfall (id. at 678).

Summary of this case from Baez v. Glavatovic
Case details for

Fuks v. New York City Transit Authority

Case Details

Full title:LEONID FUKS et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 27, 1997

Citations

243 A.D.2d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
663 N.Y.S.2d 639

Citing Cases

Urena v. New York City Transit Authority

The plaintiff's contention that the icy condition inside the station was caused by the melting and refreezing…

Thomas v. First Baptist C. of Westbury, N.Y

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