From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zvegintzov v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 16, 2016
144 A.D.3d 934 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

11-16-2016

In the Matter of Nicholas ZVEGINTZOV, appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, respondent.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Robert Newman of counsel), for appellant. James B. Henly, Brooklyn, NY (Bonnie C. Harper of counsel), for respondent.


Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Robert Newman of counsel), for appellant.

James B. Henly, Brooklyn, NY (Bonnie C. Harper of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Transit Authority Transit Adjudication Bureau Appeals Board dated June 25, 2014, affirming a decision of a hearing officer dated March 28, 2014, finding that the petitioner entered into the respondent's facilities in violation of 21 NYCRR 1050.4(a) and imposing a fine, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sweeney, J.), dated April 15, 2015, which granted that branch of the respondent's motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and 7804(f) to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the respondent's motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and 7804(f) to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action is denied, the petition is reinstated and granted, the determination dated June 25, 2014, is aned, and the decision dated March 28, 2014, is vacated.

Under the unique facts and circumstances of this particular case, that branch of the respondent's motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and 7804(f) to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action should have been denied, the petition should have been granted, the determination dated June 25, 2014, should have been aned, and the decision dated March 28, 2014, should have been vacated.

LEVENTHAL, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Zvegintzov v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 16, 2016
144 A.D.3d 934 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Zvegintzov v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Nicholas ZVEGINTZOV, appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT…

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

Date published: Nov 16, 2016

Citations

144 A.D.3d 934 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
144 A.D.3d 934
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 7667

Citing Cases

Ward v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. Transit Adjudication Bureau

This Court does not, however, believe that Transit was authorized to create an aptitude or "problem solving"…