CARRASQUILLO v. City of New York, Defendant–Respondent. (2023)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael J. Danziger, J.), entered January 12, 2023, which denied the motion of defendant New York City Transit Authority (N.Y.CTA) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.  The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The area of plaintiff's fall was neither leased by NYCTA nor did it fall within an area that served primarily for ingress and egress to its nearby subway station (see Pantazis v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 427, 621 N.Y.S.2d 57 [1st Dept. 1995];  compare Bingham v. New York City Tr. Auth., 8 N.Y.3d 176, 181, 832 N.Y.S.2d 125, 864 N.E.2d 49 [2007]).  In addition, there is no evidence that it gratuitously cleared the area, and if it did, that it created or heightened an alleged hazardous condition (see Santiago v. New York City Hous. Auth., 150 A.D.3d 545, 55 N.Y.S.3d 189 [1st Dept. 2017];  Rivas v. New York City Hous. Auth., 140 A.D.3d 580, 581, 34 N.Y.S.3d 443 [1st Dept. 2016]).