Lapcek v. New York City Transit Authority

Full title: BARBARA LAPCEK, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Respondent

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

Date published: May 4, 1999

261 A.D.2d 126 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

689 N.Y.S.2d 465

Opinion

May 4, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.).

The action was properly dismissed in the absence of evidence raising an issue of fact as to whether defendant created or had notice of the ice patch on which plaintiff fell (see, Fasolino v. Charming Stores, 77 N.Y.2d 847; Rabat v. GNAC Corp., 180 A.D.2d 540). Plaintiff's claim that the ice patch was formed by water leaking from the ceiling that froze in uncommonly cold weather, and that such hazardous condition must have been present for a sufficient length of time for defendant to discover and remedy it, is pure speculation. We have considered plaintiff's argument that summary judgment was prematurely granted before essential disclosure had been completed, and find it unpersuasive.

Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.