Katzman v. New York City Transit Authority

• Decision Date: 10 June 1991
• Citation: 571 N.Y.S.2d 93,174 A.D.2d 607
• Parties: Osher KATZMAN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 93

571 N.Y.S.2d 93

174 A.D.2d 607

Osher KATZMAN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

June 10, 1991.

Lester B. Herzog, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Albert C. Cosenza, New York City (Jeffrey Samel & Associates [David Samel] of counsel), for respondents.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and KOOPER, HARWOOD and BALLETTA, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), entered September 20, 1990, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuries suffered as the result of an assault that occurred on a bus of the defendant Transit Authority driven by the defendant Paulette Anderson. The plaintiff had felt another passenger trying to take his wallet, and when he protested, the other individual began to hit him. The bus travelled for approximately one and one-half blocks before Anderson was able to reach a telephone to call the police.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, we find that the defendants were properly granted summary judgment. Even if we were to adopt the plaintiff's argument that a special relationship existed between the defendants and himself (see generally, Cuffy v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255, 260, 513 N.Y.S.2d 372, 505 N.E.2d 937), that relationship merely established the existence of a duty of reasonable care which the plaintiff was required to show was violated (see, Rabadi v. County of Westchester, 160 A.D.2d 858, 554 N.Y.S.2d 291; Axon v. New York City Tr. Auth., 120 A.D.2d 475, 502 N.Y.S.2d 31). The plaintiff failed to show any lack of reasonable care on the part of the defendants (see, Weiner v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 55 N.Y.2d 175, 448 N.Y.S.2d 141, 433 N.E.2d 124; cf., Crosland v. New York City Tr. Auth., 68 N.Y.2d 165, 506 N.Y.S.2d 670, 498 N.E.2d 143).