From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaplow v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 30, 1998
249 A.D.2d 249 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 30, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.).


In this negligence action against, among others, NAB, the contractor hired by defendant Transit Authority to perform construction in an area within the Herald Square subway complex, plaintiff, who was attacked and raped in the complex on the landing of a stairwell exit at the end of a passageway, alleged that NAB facilitated the rape by erecting a misleading "exit" sign that misdirected her into the passageway and towards the staircase where the attack occurred, and that NAB failed to maintain the tunnel or to provide security therein despite being on notice of criminal activity in the area. Plaintiff also alleged that NAB stored construction materials in the passageway in a manner that created a dangerous condition.

The complaint was properly dismissed since plaintiff, in response to NAB's motion for summary judgment, failed to raise a triable issue as to whether any negligence by NAB proximately caused her injuries ( see, Paragon Cable Manhattan v. PS 95th St. Assocs., 240 A.D.2d 255). There was no evidence that the sign plaintiff claims to have followed was erected by defendant or that defendant performed any work in the passageway and stairwell where plaintiff was attacked. Nor was there any proof that the perpetrator of the rape used construction materials to effectuate his assault ( see, Clinger v. New York City Tr. Auth., 85 N.Y.2d 957, 959). There was also a complete absence of proof that defendant had control over the area in which the attack occurred and, accordingly, there is no common-law basis to find that NAB was under a duty to provide security in that area. Finally, contrary to plaintiff's assertion, nothing in the contract between NAB and the Transit Authority imposed a duty on NAB to provide security in the passageway where the attack took place, much less is there any indication that plaintiff and other users of the passageway were intended to be third-party beneficiaries of the construction contract ( see, Young v. Business Furniture, 195 A.D.2d 308).

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Tom and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

Kaplow v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 30, 1998
249 A.D.2d 249 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Kaplow v. New York City Transit Authority

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH KAPLOW et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY et…

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

Date published: Apr 30, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 249 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
672 N.Y.S.2d 297