Molina v. New York City Transit Authority
Opinion of the Court
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered on or about July 25, 2012, which, to the extent ap
The jury’s award is supported by testimony from plaintiff, his son, and a cleaner employed by defendant, that debris on the stairs of the subway station was a recurring condition, of which defendant was aware, that was left unaddressed (see Kelsey v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 52 AD2d 801 [1st Dept 1976]). Defendant did not demonstrate that a reasonable cleaning schedule was established and followed prior to plaintiffs accident, as its employee testified only that she cleaned the steps where plaintiff fell two days before the accident, there was no evidence of additional cleaning thereafter, and no cleaning log was admitted into evidence establishing that the routine cleaning schedule was adhered to (see Williams v New York City Hous. Auth., 99 AD3d 613 [1st Dept 2012]; accord Harrison v New York City Tr. Auth., 94 AD3d 512, 514 [1st Dept 2012]).
We find that, to the extent indicated, the award for future pain and suffering deviates materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.