From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Raines v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 22, 2014
116 A.D.3d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-04-22

Alice RAINES, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants–Appellants, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Defendant–Respondent. [And A Third–Party Action].

Zaklukiewicz, Puzo & Morrissey, LLP, Islip Terrace (Eric Z. Leiter of counsel), for appellants. Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for Alice Raines, respondent.


Zaklukiewicz, Puzo & Morrissey, LLP, Islip Terrace (Eric Z. Leiter of counsel), for appellants. Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for Alice Raines, respondent.
David M. Santoro, New York (Stephen T. Brewi of counsel), for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered January 30, 2013, which denied defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered August 28, 2013, which, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Triable issues of fact exist as to whether defendants-appellants breached their duty to provide plaintiff with a safe place to exit from the Access–A–Ride bus. In particular, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the driver knew or should have known of plaintiff's disability ( see Lewis v. New York City Tr. Auth., 100 A.D.3d 554, 555, 955 N.Y.S.2d 6 [1st Dept.2012], lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 856, 2013 WL 2350353 [2013] ), and whether the driver, by waiting for plaintiff at the front of the bus, suggested a path of egress to plaintiff that caused her to navigate a portion of the roadway containing the street pothole that allegedly caused her to trip and fall ( see Malawer v. New York City Tr. Auth., 18 A.D.3d 293, 795 N.Y.S.2d 201 [1st Dept.2005], affd.6 N.Y.3d 800, 812 N.Y.S.2d 438, 845 N.E.2d 1268 [2006];Tolbert v. New York City Tr. Auth., 256 A.D.2d 171, 683 N.Y.S.2d 498 [1st Dept.1998] ).

We have considered defendants-appellants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing. TOM, J.P., RENWICK, RICHTER, FEINMAN, GISCHE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Raines v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 22, 2014
116 A.D.3d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Raines v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth.

Case Details

Full title:Alice RAINES, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE TRANSIT…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 22, 2014

Citations

116 A.D.3d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
116 A.D.3d 606
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2728

Citing Cases

Lewis v. ALL Transit, LLC

She was asked at her EBT if it was operable, and she said it was, but because of her arthritis, or carpal…

Houston v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

The defendants appeal, and we affirm. "[A] common carrier is subject to the same duty of care as any other…