From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hooghuis v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1999
264 A.D.2d 816 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted June 9, 1999

September 27, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants New York City Transit Authority, Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated July 20, 1998, which denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Lawrence Heisler of counsel), for appellants.

Bosco, Bisignano Mascolo, Staten Island, N.Y. (James A. Maleady of counsel), for respondent.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

In light of the massive snowfall which began three days prior to the plaintiff s fall, and the additional precipitation which took place only a few hours prior to the plaintiff's fall, the appellants were not negligent in failing to clear all traces of snow from the stairwell where the plaintiff allegedly slipped. Therefore, the appellants' cross motion for summary judgment should have been granted (see, Bethel v. New York City Tr. Auth., 92 N.Y.2d 348, 350, 356; Palmer v. Penn. Co., 111 N.Y. 488, 494; Martinez v. Columbia Presbyt. Med. Ctr., 238 A.D.2d 286; Valentine v. City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 381, 383-384, affd 57 N.Y.2d 932; see also, Urena v. New York City Tr. Auth., 248 A.D.2d 377; Fuks v. New York City Tr. Auth., 243 A.D.2d 678).

BRACKEN, J.P., THOMPSON, GOLDSTEIN, McGINITY, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hooghuis v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1999
264 A.D.2d 816 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Hooghuis v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:JOHN HOOGHUIS, respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, defendant, NEW YORK CITY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 27, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 816 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
696 N.Y.S.2d 183

Citing Cases

Rusin v. City of N.Y.

lly cannot be held liable for injuries sustained as a result of slippery conditions that occur during an…

Rusin v. City of New York

In this particular instance, it is defendants' assertion that two and one half days, or fifty seven hours,…