25 A.D.3d 376 808 N.Y.S.2d 651

Francine Nayman, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

[808 NYS2d 651]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered March 30, 2004, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if the storm that resulted in the complained-of hazard had stopped by the time of plaintiffs accident, it is clear from plaintiffs testimony that the period of cessation was only about one hour, an interval too brief to have given rise to a legally enforceable duty on defendant’s part to remediate the hazard (see Valentine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 381 [1982], affd 57 NY2d 932 [1982]; and see e.g. Urena v New York City Tr. Auth., 248 AD2d 377 [1998]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Nayman v. New York City Transit Authority
25 A.D.3d 376 808 N.Y.S.2d 651

Case Details

Name
Nayman v. New York City Transit Authority
Decision Date
Jan 10, 2006
Citations

25 A.D.3d 376

808 N.Y.S.2d 651

Jurisdiction
New York

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!