Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

Arteaga v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 6, 2012

101 A.D.3d 454; 956 N.Y.2d 9

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Cunningham v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Santiago v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Farrulla v. Happy Care Ambulette Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matthew Adam Props., Inc. v. The United House of Prayer for All People of the Church on the Rock of the Apostolic Faith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Diversified Group, Inc. v. Marcum & Kliegman LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Diversified Group, Inc. v. Marcum & Kliegman LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Brill & Meisel v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Brill & Meisel v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)

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

Plaintiff served a timely notice of claim on defendant City alleging that she was injured when she slipped and fell on a platform in a subway station. The motion court correctly granted defendant’s motion since it demonstrated that the subway station is leased to the NYCTA, and it is an out-of-possession landlord and not liable for negligence on the part of NYCTA (see McGuire v City of New York, 211 AD2d 428 [1st Dept 1995]). There is no prohibition against moving for summary judgment based on an unpleaded defense where the opposing party is not taken by surprise and does not suffer prejudice as a result (see Rosario v City of New York, 261 AD2d 380 [2d Dept 1999]). Nor is defendant equitably estopped from relying on the defense (see Neil v City of New York, 95 AD3d 608, 609 [1st Dept 2012]).

Plaintiffs cross motion seeking relief as to nonparty NYCTA was properly denied since plaintiff never served a notice of claim on the NYCTA and the statute of limitations of one year and 90 days has expired (see Public Authorities Law § 1212 [2]; General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Pierson v City of New York, 56 NY2d 950 [1982]; Singleton v City of New York, 55 AD3d 447 [1st Dept 2008]).

*455We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.

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