Opinion
9234 Index 114967/10
05-07-2019
Brenda REVELLA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Philip J. Dinhofer, Rockville Centre, for appellant.
Philip J. Dinhofer, Rockville Centre, for appellant.
Renwick, J.P., Richter, Tom, Kapnick, Kern, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered January 10, 2018, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff alleges that she was injured disembarking a train, when she slipped and fell on ice that was on the platform. The complaint was properly dismissed as against defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority since " ‘[i]t is well settled, as a matter of law, that the functions of the MTA with respect to public transportation are limited to financing and planning, and do not include the operation, maintenance, and control of any facility’ " ( Delacruz v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 45 A.D.3d 482, 483, 846 N.Y.S.2d 160 [1st Dept. 2007], quoting Cusick v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 105 A.D.2d 681, 681, 481 N.Y.S.2d 122 [2d Dept. 1984] ; see Noonan v. Long Is. R.R., 158 A.D.2d 392, 551 N.Y.S.2d 232 [1st Dept. 1990] ).
In any event, the action was properly dismissed as against both defendants since plaintiff's testimony, as well as certified meteorological records, established prima facie that plaintiff fell during an ongoing storm. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact that the complained of icy platform condition was due to other than the freezing rain that was falling at the time that she was injured (see Harbison v. New York City Tr. Auth., 147 A.D.3d 693, 48 N.Y.S.3d 354 (1st Dept. 2017] ; Solazzo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 21 A.D.3d 735, 800 N.Y.S.2d 698 [1st Dept. 2005], affd 6 N.Y.3d 734, 810 N.Y.S.2d 121, 843 N.E.2d 748 [2005] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.