Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007

Karwowski v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 16, 2007

44 A.D.3d 826; 844 N.Y.S.2d 96

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Rodney v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Amico v. Kasneci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Paulos v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Capasso v. Capasso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Miller v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Uttaro v. Staten Island University Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Hamoudeh v. Mandel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Hunt v. Meyers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Knox v. United Christian Church of God, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Rodriguez v. Trakansook (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Hughes-Berg v. Mueller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Jaffe v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Colucci v. AFC Construction (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)

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, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated June 27, 2006, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he fell while descend*827ing a stairway in the Nassau Avenue subway station in Brooklyn. At his statutory hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, and at his examination before trial, the plaintiff testified that he did not know what caused him to fall, although he noted that there was snow and rain falling at the time of the accident, and that the subway steps were wet.

The defendant met its burden in moving for summary judgment by submitting the hearing and deposition testimony of the plaintiff, which indicated that he did not know the cause of the accident. In the absence of such evidence, the jury could not return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff without engaging in improper speculation as to the cause of the accident (see Manning v 6638 18th Ave. Realty Corp., 28 AD3d 434 [2006]; Oettinger v Amerada Hess Corp., 15 AD3d 638 [2005]; Christopher v New York City Tr. Auth., 300 AD2d 336 [2002]; Teplitskaya v 3096 Owners Corp., 289 AD2d 477 [2001]; Brown-Phifer v Cross County Mall Multiplex, 282 AD2d 564 [2001]).

To the extent that the plaintiff’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion asserted that the cause of his fall was a wet condition on the subway stairs, it presented a feigned issue of fact designed to avoid the consequences of his earlier deposition testimony, and thus was insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion (see Stancil v Supermarkets Gen., 16 AD3d 402 [2005]; Oettinger v Amerada Hess Corp., 15 AD3d 638 [2005]; Christopher v New York City Tr. Auth., 300 AD2d 336 [2002]; Marcelle v New York City Tr. Auth., 289 AD2d 459 [2001]). Rivera, J.P., Covello, Balkin and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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