Acevedo v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
| Decision Date | 05 July 2012 |
| Citation | 97 A.D.3d 515,947 N.Y.S.2d 599,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05377 |
| Parties | Angel ACEVEDO, appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Gardiner & Nolan, Brooklyn, N.Y. (William Gardiner of counsel), for appellant.
Steve S. Efron, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated July 14, 2011, which granted the defendant'smotion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell over a wooden board at the edge of a subway platform as he attempted to enter a train during rush hour. The defendant, the New York City Transit Authority, had placed the wooden board, which was not flush with the surrounding platform, at the edge of the platform as a temporary measure to cover a defect in the platform. The plaintiff alleged that, when he arrived at the platform, the train had already pulled into the station and there were people exiting and entering the train. The wooden board was located near one of the train doors. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, and the defendant moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals, and we reverse.
“To impose liability upon a defendant in a trip-and-fall action, there must be evidence that a dangerous or defective condition existed, and that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it” ( Dennehy–Murphy v. Nor–Topia Serv. Ctr., Inc., 61 A.D.3d 629, 629, 876 N.Y.S.2d 512). Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property so as to create liability depends on the particular circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury ( see Surujnaraine v. Valley Stream Cent. High School Dist., 88 A.D.3d 866, 931 N.Y.S.2d 119;Katz v. Westchester County Healthcare Corp., 82 A.D.3d 712, 917 N.Y.S.2d 896;Stoppeli v. Yacenda, 78 A.D.3d 815, 911 N.Y.S.2d 119;Villano v. Strathmore Terrace Homeowners Assn., Inc., 76 A.D.3d 1061, 908 N.Y.S.2d 124). “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nussbaum v. Railroad
...of the condition.” Gaeta v. City of New York, 213 A.D.2d 509, 624 N.Y.S.2d 47, 47 (2d Dep't 1995); Acevedo v. New York City Transit Auth., 97 A.D.3d 515, 947 N.Y.S.2d 599, 600 (2d Dep't 2012) (“To impose liability upon a defendant in a trip-and-fall action, there must be evidence that a dan......
-
Pellegrino v. Trapasso
...depends on the particular circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury ( see Acevedo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 97 A.D.3d 515, 947 N.Y.S.2d 599;Surujnaraine v. Valley Stream Cent. High School Dist., 88 A.D.3d at 866, 931 N.Y.S.2d 119;Katz v. Westchester Count......
-
Austin v. Cdga Nat'l Bank Trust & Canandaigua Nat'l Corp.
...saw ice on the step, raise an issue of fact concerning the presence of a dangerous condition ( see generally Acevedo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 97 A.D.3d 515, 516, 947 N.Y.S.2d 599), we conclude that defendants met their burden of establishing that they lacked notice of the allegedly dange......
-
Grizzell v. JQ Assocs., LLC
...York, 106 A.D.3d 1081, 966 N.Y.S.2d 177;Harris v. 11 W. 42 Realty Invs., LLC, 98 A.D.3d 1084, 951 N.Y.S.2d 203;Acevedo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 97 A.D.3d 515, 947 N.Y.S.2d 599). Some visible hazards, because of their nature or location, are likely to be overlooked. The facts here do not ......