Yarde v. New York City Transit Authority
| Decision Date | 02 February 2004 |
| Docket Number | 2002-06368.,2003-02940. |
| Citation | 4 A.D.3d 352,771 N.Y.S.2d 185,2004 NY Slip Op 00516 |
| Parties | DOLORES YARDE, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.
The defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the defendant) established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, thereby shifting the burden to the plaintiff to submit admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). In opposition to the defendant's cross motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the mere existence of a five-inch gap between the platform of the subway station and the door of the subway car constituted negligence (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Ryan v Manhattan Ry. Co., 121 NY 126 [1890]; Lang v Interborough R.T. Co., 193 App Div 56 [1920]; Gibson v New York Consol. R.R. Co., 173 App Div 125 [1916]; Smith v Brooklyn Hgts. R.R. Co., 129 App Div 635 [1908]; Tomayo v Murray, 173 Misc 728 [1940]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and properly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a note of issue.
A motion for leave to renew must be "based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination," and the movant must state a "reasonable justification for the failure to present such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferdico v. Zweig
...(CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]; see Bank of Am., N.A., USA v. Friedman, 44 A.D.3d 696, 842 N.Y.S.2d 721; Yarde v. New York City Tr. Auth., 4 A.D.3d 352, 353, 771 N.Y.S.2d 185; Johnson v. Marquez, 2 A.D.3d 786, 788–789, 770 N.Y.S.2d 377; Riccio v. DePeralta, 274 A.D.2d 384, 711 N.Y.S.2d 17). The Mull......
-
Lane v. Smith
...on the prior motion[s]” (CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]; see Ferdico v. Zweig, 82 A.D.3d 1151, 919 N.Y.S.2d 521;Yarde v. New York City Tr. Auth., 4 A.D.3d 352, 353, 771 N.Y.S.2d 185;Johnson v. Marquez, 2 A.D.3d 786, 788–789, 770 N.Y.S.2d 377). Under the circumstances presented, the awards of $180,000......
-
Andrews v. New York City Hous. Auth.
...v. Elder, 21 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 802 N.Y.S.2d 457; Renna v. Gullo, 19 A.D.3d at 473, 797 N.Y.S.2d 115; Yarde v. New York City Tr. Auth., 4 A.D.3d 352, 353, 771 N.Y.S.2d 185; Welch Foods v. Wilson, 247 A.D.2d 830, 830–831, 669 N.Y.S.2d 109; Levitt v. County of Suffolk, 166 A.D.2d at 423, 560 ......
-
Commisso v. Orshan
...the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]; see Ferdico v. Zweig, 82 A.D.3d 1151, 1153, 919 N.Y.S.2d 521; Yarde v. New York City Tr. Auth., 4 A.D.3d 352, 353, 771 N.Y.S.2d 185; Emanuel v. Broadway Mall Props., 293 A.D.2d 708, 709, 741 N.Y.S.2d...