Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
William GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered March 3, 2006, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a fall on stairs leading up to an above-ground subway station, granted defendant Transit Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff's cross motion to strike defendant's answer for noncompliance with its disclosure obligations, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny defendant's motion for summary judgment, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's complaint and General Municipal Law § 50-h testimony gave fair notice of her claim that defendant's snow removal operations made the stairs more dangerous by piling snow high on both sides of the steps, leaving only a narrow path up the stairs that was covered with a thin, slippery layer of compressed snow, and preventing plaintiff from being able to reach a handrail to stop his fall. Given such a claim, and moving papers that are silent as to defendant's snow removal procedures and whether it performed any snow removal operations earlier on the day of the accident, it does not avail defendant to assert that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident. Assuming a storm was in progress, defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that plaintiff's fall was not caused by a dangerous condition created or exacerbated by any negligence by defendant in performing any earlier, gratuitous snow removal operations (see Rugova v. 2199 Holland Ave. Apt. Corp., 272 A.D.2d 261, 708 N.Y.S.2d 390 [2000]; Prenderville v. International Serv. Sys., Inc., 10 A.D.3d 334, 337-338, 781 N.Y.S.2d 110 [2004] ). Concerning plaintiff's cross motion, no basis exists to disturb the motion court's exercise of discretion in deciding defendant's motion for summary judgment before defendant had complied with the court's latest compliance order (CPLR 3214[b]; see Cantos v. Castle Abatement Corp., 251 A.D.2d 40, 41-42, 673 N.Y.S.2d 662 [1998] ).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 17, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)