Opinion
August 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Court of Appeals has explicitly stated that "[t]he New York City Transit Authority owes no duty to protect a person on its premises from assault by a third person, absent facts establishing a special relationship between the authority and the person assaulted" (Weiner v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 55 N.Y.2d 175, 178). In this case, the plaintiff does not claim that such a special relationship existed, nor does the record contain facts sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the alleged act/omission of the Transit Authority employee was outside the boundaries of the policy-based governmental immunity established in Weiner (supra) (cf., Crosland v. New York City Tr. Auth., 68 N.Y.2d 165, 170). Accordingly, the Transit Authority was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
We have examined the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.