Bingham v. NYC TR. AUTH.
| Decision Date | 20 February 2003 |
| Citation | 99 N.Y.2d 355,786 N.E.2d 28,756 N.Y.S.2d 129 |
| Parties | INA J. BINGHAM, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Constantine P. Kokkoris, New York City, and Ginsberg & Katsorhis, P.C., Flushing (Kerry J. Katsorhis of counsel), for appellant.
Lawrence Heisler, Brooklyn, and Wallace D. Gossett for respondents.
On November 9, 1995, plaintiff entered a stairway leading down to the subway station at Columbus Circle between Broadway and Central Park West in Manhattan. She claims that as she descended, her foot caught under a metal strip at the edge of the third step from the bottom and she fell forward, injuring her wrist and knee. Plaintiff brought suit against the New York City Transit Authority and the Metropolitan Transit Authority, alleging inadequate maintenance of the stairway. Supreme Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, concluding that defendants neither own nor have any legal responsibility for the stairway. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that defendants submitted sufficient evidence to establish that they did not own the stairway and that as a mere common user of the stairway, defendants were under no duty to maintain the stairway for the benefit of their patrons. We now reverse and deny summary judgment.
The dispute in the courts below centered on how to apply a rule first articulated by Appellate Term nearly a century ago in Schlessinger v Manhattan Ry. Co. (49 Misc 504 [1906]). In that case, plaintiff was injured on a stairway that was owned and maintained by the City of New York but used by passengers to access defendant railway company's train platform. The court held that a railway company's duty to provide safe approaches for its passengers applies not only to approaches owned by the company but also to those owned by other entities "if constantly and notoriously used by passengers as a means of approach" (id. at 505). The court held that constant use of a particular approach as a means of access to the train indicates at least an implied invitation by the railway to passengers to use that approach, and such invitation creates a duty on the part of the railway company to keep it safe.
Building upon that rule, several trial court and Appellate Division decisions since Schlessinger have held that where a stairway is used "solely" or "constantly" to provide passengers access to a subway station, the transit authority has a duty to keep the stairway in safe condition, or at least give such warning as would protect those using the stairway against unforeseen danger, regardless of who actually owns or controls the stairway (see e.g. Haberlin v New York City Tr. Auth., 228 AD2d 383, 385
[1st Dept 1996]; Bruno v Vernon Park Realty, 2 AD2d 770, 771 [2d Dept 1956]). Courts have not applied the rule where the stairway is used as a means of access to businesses or tenants in addition to the subway (see O'Hara v New York City Tr. Auth., 248 AD2d 138, 140 [1st Dept 1998]).
Defendants here sought summary judgment on the ground that the stairway in the present case was owned by another party and used for purposes in addition to subway access, and they therefore have no responsibility for plaintiff's injury. In support of their motion, defendants submitted a 1971 agreement with the property owner granting them an easement for the subway station, a blueprint of the station and several unpublished decisions summarily dismissing complaints in similar cases. Defendants also submitted an affidavit (with supporting photographs) from their trial counsel reporting her personal observation that in 1991—four years before plaintiff's fall—the stairway in issue was used to access other businesses in addition to the subway. In opposition, plaintiff submitted the affidavit of her daughter, who was with her at the time of the accident, asserting that she observed no stores or businesses operating in the subway station near the stairway, and that the entire area was then under construction.
Defendants' submissions are insufficient to establish, for purposes of summary judgment, that they were merely a common user of the stairway in question. Trial counsel's affidavit speaks only to use of the area four years before plaintiff's fall, and it is controverted by the affidavit of plaintiff's daughter, who at the time of the accident saw no other businesses operating in the subway station. Thus, applying the Schlessinger rule—as this record compels us to—an issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Ozcan
...opposition rebutting the plaintiff's contention now improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Bingham v. New York City Tr. Auth., 99 N.Y.2d 355, 756 N.Y.S.2d 129, 786 N.E.2d 28 ; Lischinskaya v. Carnival Corp., 56 A.D.3d at 120–121, 865 N.Y.S.2d 334 ["Since such an argument potent......
-
Citibank, N.A. v. Kerszko
...Wilson v. Galicia Contr. & Restoration Corp., 10 N.Y.3d 827, 829, 860 N.Y.S.2d 417, 890 N.E.2d 179 ; Bingham v. New York City Tr. Auth., 99 N.Y.2d 355, 359, 756 N.Y.S.2d 129, 786 N.E.2d 28 ). Nor are rules of preservation "only concerned with fairness to [the] litigants, important as that g......
-
People v. Alvarez
...due diligence argument was not presented below, we may not consider it on this appeal (see Bingham v. New York City Tr. Auth., 99 N.Y.2d 355, 359, 756 N.Y.S.2d 129, 786 N.E.2d 28 [2003] ).Even if preserved, the People's argument is without merit.2 The People would have us extend the analysi......
-
Simmons v. Stewart (In re Estate of Lewis)
...773; see generally Misicki v. Caradonna, 12 N.Y.3d 511, 519, 882 N.Y.S.2d 375, 909 N.E.2d 1213; Bingham v. New York City Tr. Auth., 99 N.Y.2d 355, 359, 756 N.Y.S.2d 129, 786 N.E.2d 28). Moreover, appellate courts cannot and will not review an issue that has never been raised by the parties ......