Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998

Rios v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 15, 1998

251 A.D.2d 484; 673 N.Y.S.2d 1020; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6839

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Turton v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Turton v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Frazier v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Jacobs v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Banks v. New York City Department of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Besedina v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Bastien v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Paige v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Miller v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 5, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant, New York City Transit Authority, “owes no duty to protect a person on its premises from assault by a third person, absent facts establishing a special relationship between the authority and the person assaulted” (Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 55 NY2d 175, 178; see, Harrell v New York City Tr. Auth., 221 AD2d 591; Tidd v New York City Tr. Auth., 218 AD2d 694; Alleyne v New York City Tr. Auth., 208 AD2d 666).

The plaintiffs failed to establish that a special relationship existed between the injured plaintiff and the defendant’s employees. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the subway motorman, upon learning that the injured plaintiff was being assaulted, acted within the boundaries of the policy-based governmental immunity established in Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. (supra), and observed common standards of *485behavior (see, Crosland v New York City Tr. Auth., 68 NY2d 165). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.