Rodriguez v. New York City Transit Authority
| Decision Date | 10 September 2001 |
| Citation | 730 N.Y.S.2d 135,286 A.D.2d 681 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | BRIGITTE RODRIGUEZ et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellant. |
O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages arising from injuries sustained by the plaintiff Brigitte Rodriguez while riding the subway. After a trial on the issue of liability, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs on both a design defect and a negligence theory. We reverse and dismiss the complaint.
The plaintiffs' claim of a design defect was not referred to, either directly or indirectly, in the plaintiffs' original or amended notices of claim and substantially altered the nature of their claims (see, Chipurnoi v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 216 AD2d 171; Mazzilli v City of New York, 154 AD2d 355). Thus, the plaintiffs should not have been permitted to present evidence of such a theory to the jury. In any event, the limited testimony as to a design defect presented at trial was not sufficient to sustain the jury's finding of liability on that claim (see, Adamy v Ziriakus, 92 NY2d 396; Amatulli v Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 NY2d 525; Pinzon v City of New York, 197 AD2d 680).
Further, based on the evidence presented at trial, there was simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could have possibly led rational persons to conclude that the defendant was negligent in the happening of the accident and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the damages alleged (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493; Kozinevich v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 201 AD2d 462).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
...that the defendants' alleged negligence was a proximate cause of the decedent's injuries and death (see Rodriguez v. New York City Tr. Auth., 286 A.D.2d 681, 681–682, 730 N.Y.S.2d 135 ). Even assuming that the defendants' employees were negligent in failing to remove the decedent from the t......
-
Ryabchenko v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
...defectively installed or designed (compare Crew v. Town of Beekman, 105 A.D.3d 799, 962 N.Y.S.2d 677, and Rodriguez v. New York City Tr. Auth., 286 A.D.2d 681, 730 N.Y.S.2d 135, with Ortega v. New York City Tr. Auth., 170 A.D.3d 872, 96 N.Y.S.3d 117 ). Therefore, the proposed amendments wer......
-
Hegeman v. City of Newburgh
...[1st Dept 2004]; Barksdale v. New York City Tr, Auth., 294 A.D.2d 210, 211 [1st Dept 2002]; Rodriguez v. New York City Tr. Auth., 286 A.D.2d 681 [2d Dept 2001]). In opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, plaintiff concedes that the City lacked prior written notice of the alleged dange......
- Rodriguez v. New York City Transit Authority