From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gordon v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 1999
267 A.D.2d 201 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted October 29, 1999

December 6, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated September 11, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Wallace D. Gossett (Steve S. Efron, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant.

Spiegel Barbato, LLP, Bronx, N.Y. (Philip J. Sporn of counsel), for respondent.

SONDRA MILLER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


ORDERED the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant New York City Transit Authority, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured when she slipped and fell while exiting a bus operated by the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the appellant). The plaintiff alleged that she fell because of a slippery substance on the steps, that the appellant had allowed the bus to become dangerously overcrowded, and that the stairwell of the bus was insufficiently lighted.

In its motion for summary judgment, the appellant made a prima facia showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see,Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320 ; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 ). Contrary to the Supreme Court's decision, the plaintiff failed to raise material issues of fact in her opposition papers. The evidence indicated that the appellant did not have actual or constructive notice of a potentially dangerous condition caused by some type of slippery substance on the step (see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836 ). Additionally, there is no evidence that the injuries suffered by the plaintiff resulted from any restriction on her free movement due to the alleged overcrowded conditions (see, Palmieri v. Ringling Bros. Barnum Bailey Combined Shows, 237 A.D.2d 589 ;Hsieh v. New York City Tr. Auth., 216 A.D.2d 531). Furthermore, the evidence failed to establish a causal relationship between the allegedly dim lighting and the accident (see, Reagan v. Saratoga Hotel Corp., 18 N.Y.2d 661 ; Wright v. South Nassau Communities Hosp., 254 A.D.2d 277 ).

S. MILLER, J.P., ALTMAN, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gordon v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 1999
267 A.D.2d 201 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Gordon v. New York City Transit Authority

Case Details

Full title:HYACINTH GORDON, respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY…

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

Date published: Dec 6, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 201 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
699 N.Y.S.2d 449

Citing Cases

Tyz v. First St. Holding Co.

Here, defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence demonstrating that…

Schmidt v. Barstow Associates

Thus, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of the plaintiffs'…