NAYMAN v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (2006)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Francine NAYMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: January 10, 2006

FRIEDMAN, J.P., SULLIVAN, NARDELLI, WILLIAMS, SWEENY, JJ.

Lisa M. Comeau, Mineola, for appellant. Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (Lawrence A. Silver of counsel), for respondent.

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 plaintiff's accident, it is clear from plaintiff's 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 A.D.2d 381, 449 N.Y.S.2d 991 [1982], affd. 57 N.Y.2d 932, 457 N.Y.S.2d 240, 443 N.E.2d 488 [1982]; and see e.g. Urena v. New York City Tr. Auth., 248 A.D.2d 377, 669 N.Y.S.2d 662 [1998] ).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network