Douglas v. New York City Transit Authority
| Decision Date | 09 July 1963 |
| Citation | 19 A.D.2d 707,241 N.Y.S.2d 472 |
| Parties | Etta G. DOUGLAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, The City of New York, Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases, Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y., Inc., and Consolidated Telegraph & Electrical Subway Co., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
M. Siegelbaum, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
A. Satran, Brooklyn, F. Iscol, P. E. Gibbons, J. M. Keegan, New York City, for defendants-respondents.
Before BOTEIN, P. J., and STEVENS, STEUER, BERGAN and BASTOW, JJ.
Judgment in so far as it dismissed the complaint against defendant, The City of New York, unanimously reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted with costs to appellant to abide the event and judgment otherwise unanimously affirmed without costs. Plaintiff concedes that she failed to establish a prima facie case against any defendants except the City of New York and the Transit Authority. We agree and further find that the complaint was properly dismissed as to the defendant, Transit Authority. Proof was submitted, however, that presented an issue of fact as to the defendant, City of New York. Two eye witnesses to the accident were leaving the bus at or about the same time as plaintiff. Both testified that after appellant left the bus she took a few steps and fell. The defect in the sidewalk that may have caused the fall was described as to size and proximity to the point of plaintiff's passage. Photographs of the condition of the walk were placed in evidence. In this state of the proof it was error to dismiss the complaint as to the City.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blye v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority
...will not extend to the passenger's act of stepping into the structurally defective or perilous spot. In Douglas v. New York City Transit Authority, 19 A.D.2d 707, 241 N.Y.S.2d 472, the passenger safely stepped off the bus onto the sidewalk, but was injured when, after taking only a few step......
-
Brown v. City of New York
...supra; Connolly v. Rogers, supra; see also, Diedrick v. City of New York, 162 A.D.2d 496, 556 N.Y.S.2d 698; Douglas v. New York City Tr. Auth., 19 A.D.2d 707, 241 N.Y.S.2d 472). ...
-
Otonoga v. City of New York
...A.D.2d 649, 650-651, 599 N.Y.S.2d 731; Diedrick v. City of New York, 162 A.D.2d 496, 497, 556 N.Y.S.2d 698; Douglas v. New York City Tr. Auth., 19 A.D.2d 707, 241 N.Y.S.2d 472). Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in denying the NYCTA's motion for summary judgment, as the plaintiff failed to......
-
People v. Moise
... ... 19 A.D.2d 707 ... The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, ... John V. MOISE, Defendant-Appellant ... S. Mann, New York City, for defendant-appellant ... Before ... ...