GORDON v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (1999)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated September 11, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant New York City Transit Authority, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured when she slipped and fell while exiting a bus operated by the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the appellant).   The plaintiff alleged that she fell because of a slippery substance on the steps, that the appellant had allowed the bus to become dangerously overcrowded, and that the stairwell of the bus was insufficiently lighted.

In its motion for summary judgment, the appellant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572;  Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).   Contrary to the Supreme Court's decision, the plaintiff failed to raise material issues of fact in her opposition papers.   The evidence indicated that the appellant did not have actual or constructive notice of a potentially dangerous condition caused by some type of slippery substance on the step (see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774).  Additionally, there is no evidence that the injuries suffered by the plaintiff resulted from any restriction on her free movement due to the alleged overcrowded conditions (see, Palmieri v. Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, 237 A.D.2d 589, 655 N.Y.S.2d 646;  Hsieh v. New York City Tr. Auth., 216 A.D.2d 531, 628 N.Y.S.2d 767).   Furthermore, the evidence failed to establish a causal relationship between the allegedly dim lighting and the accident (see, Reagan v. Saratoga Hotel Corp., 18 N.Y.2d 661, 273 N.Y.S.2d 81, 219 N.E.2d 432;  Wright v. South Nassau Communities Hosp., 254 A.D.2d 277, 678 N.Y.S.2d 636).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.