Prinz v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 05 April 1979 |
| Citation | 98 Misc.2d 952,415 N.Y.S.2d 200 |
| Parties | Mary PRINZ, as Administratrix of the Estate of Eugene Prinz, Deceased, and Mary Prinz, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York City Transit Authority and the Long Island Railroad Co., Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
O'Dwyer & Bernstein, New York City, for plaintiff Mary Prinz.
Allen G. Schwartz, Corp. Counsel, New York City, for defendant City of New York.
Alphonse E. D'Ambrose, Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendant NYCTA and Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Thomas M. Taranto, Jamaica, N. Y., for defendant Long Island Railroad Co., Inc.
Motion numbers 43 and 44 of the calendar of March 21, 1979 are consolidated for disposition. By motion number 43, defendant Long Island Railroad moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 in this action for wrongful death. By her complaint plaintiff alleges that the decedent was murdered in a passageway near the subway station at West 35th Street and Eighth Avenue in New York City, which passageway was "operated, managed and maintained and controlled" by defendant Long Island Railroad and the co-defendants City of New York, New York City Transit Authority ("NYCTA") and Metropolitan Transit Authority. She alleges that his death resulted from the failure of defendants to adequately protect him. However, defendant Long Island Railroad states unequivocally that it does not own, operate, maintain or control the area in which the murder occurred and plaintiff has offered no evidence to rebut this statement. Similarly, in companion motion number 44, in which the co-defendants move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and 3211(c), defendant Metropolitan Transit Authority states that its functions with respect to public transportation are limited to financing and planning and that they do not include the operation, maintenance or control of any facility, and plaintiff has also offered no evidence to rebut this statement. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the complaint is granted as to those two defendants since no showing has been made that they bear any responsibility for the area in which the murder occurred.
Basis for defendants City of New York and NYCTA's motion to dismiss is that as a municipality or public authority, they are not liable for any failure to provide adequate police protection to the public, absent a special duty to do so, which, they contend,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weiner v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority
...Tr. Auth., 12 A.D.2d 11, 207 N.Y.S.2d 855; Biniewski v. i City of New York, 267 App.Div. 108, 44 N.Y.S.2d 543; Prinz v. City of New York, 98 Misc.2d 952, 415 N.Y.S.2d 200; Eisman v. Port Auth. Trans Hudson Corp., 96 Misc.2d 678, 409 N.Y.S.2d 578; see Moriarity v. New York City Tr. Auth., 11......
-
People v. Thill
...427 N.Y.S.2d 125 ... 75 A.D.2d 709 ... PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, ... Edward THILL, Appellant ... Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department ... ...
-
Cusick v. Lutheran Medical Center
...v. New York City Tr. Auth., 48 A.D.2d 69, 368 N.Y.S.2d 165, affd. 39 N.Y.2d 990, 387 N.Y.S.2d 235, 355 N.E.2d 289; Prinz v. City of New York, 98 Misc.2d 952, 415 N.Y.S.2d 200). An employer may be liable in a third-party action involving injury to an employee even though the employer could n......
-
Shernov v. New York City Transit Authority
...inflicted upon her by third persons (see Amoruso v. New York City Tr. Auth., 12 A.D.2d 11, 207 N.Y.S.2d 855; Prinz v. City of New York, 98 Misc.2d 952, 415 N.Y.S.2d 200). The complaint was properly dismissed, however, because plaintiff failed to establish that any breach of such duty by def......