Summary
dismissing personal injury action against MTA since it neither owned or operated any buses
Summary of this case from Portlette v. Metropolitan Transp. AuthOpinion
1728
October 2, 2003.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered July 1, 2002, which granted the motion of defendants Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York City Transit Authority and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Raymond C. Silverman, for plaintiff-appellant.
Lawrence A. Silver, for defendants-respondents.
Before: Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin, Marlow, Gonzalez, JJ.
Plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries allegedly sustained when she fell on ice that had formed in a depression in a bus lane on a city street. Her complaint, however, was properly dismissed insofar as it seeks to hold defendants Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York City Transit Authority and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (the transit defendants), accountable for the alleged hazard since bus lanes, like other elements of the City's infrastructure, are the responsibility of the City and do not constitute a "special use" by the transit defendants (see Gall v. City of New York, 223 A.D.2d 622;Blakeney v. City of New York, 222 A.D.2d 390; see also Pantazis v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 427). No triable issue has been raised as to whether vehicles operated by the transit defendants, as opposed to the innumerable other vehicles that routinely utilize municipal bus lanes or indeed non-vehicular factors such as ground and weather conditions, caused the complained-of defect (cf. Matias v. City of New York, 292 A.D.2d 311) . Finally, we note that the action must be dismissed against defendant Metropolitan Transit Authority for the additional reason that it neither owns nor operates any buses (see Cusick v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 105 A.D.2d 681) and thus cannot be held responsible for a condition that plaintiff alleges was created over time by bus traffic.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.