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.
Christina TORRES, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant–Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered October 26, 2009, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.
Plaintiff alleges that, while riding a bus in the Bronx operated by defendant, she slipped and fell on an oily substance on the floor. The court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment because defendant failed to satisfy its burden of making a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment upon the basis that it lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazard (see Castillo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 69 A.D.3d 487, 891 N.Y.S.2d 645 [2010]; Moser v. BP/CG Ctr. I, LLC, 56 A.D.3d 323, 866 N.Y.S.2d 869 [2008]; Baptiste v. 1626 Meat Corp., 45 A.D.3d 259, 844 N.Y.S.2d 271 [2007]. Defendant failed to demonstrate that the driver that it produced for an EBT was the driver of the bus in question. Even if the witness produced actually was the driver, he provided no details regarding when the bus was last checked for defects on the day of the accident(see Moser, 56 A.D.3d at 323, 866 N.Y.S.2d 869), and his testimony as to general procedures for bus inspection was insufficient for summary judgment purposes (see Baptiste, 45 A.D.3d at 259, 844 N.Y.S.2d 271). Finally, plaintiff's testimony directly controverts that of the defendant's witness, creating issues of fact that preclude summary judgment.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: December 16, 2010
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)