From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Batista v. N.Y. City Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 8, 2009
66 A.D.3d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 1135.

October 8, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered September 3, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (Lawrence Heisler of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Stuart M. Rissoff, Garden City (William R. Cohen of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


The assertion of plaintiffs expert that there were defects in the staircase on which plaintiff fell is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to proximate cause, because there is no evidence connecting plaintiffs fall to those defects ( Kane v Estia Greek Rest., 4 AD3d 189; see also Telfeyan v City of New York, 40 AD3d 372).


Summaries of

Batista v. N.Y. City Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 8, 2009
66 A.D.3d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Batista v. N.Y. City Transit Auth

Case Details

Full title:LUIS BATISTA, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 8, 2009

Citations

66 A.D.3d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7195
886 N.Y.S.2d 403

Citing Cases

Ventra v. 377 Greenwich LLC

Here, Plaintiffs expert did not connect Plaintiffs fall to the alleged defect and, thus, failed to raise a…