Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Lewis v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 28, 1984Published

1Concurrence

Fein, J. (concurring).

I concur in result only, solely upon the ground that the evidence is insufficient upon which to find that the defendant created or had the requisite actual or constructive notice of the presence of the alleged slippery or foreign substance on the station platform (Donohoe v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 277 App Div 739, 741; Boettcher v Dowling, 243 App Div 397, affd 270 NY 557), or that because of plaintiff’s alleged obesity she requested or required assistance in boarding the train. (See Sheridan v Brooklyn City & Newtown R. R. Co., 36 NY 39.)

Ross and Carro, JJ.,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Sheridan v. Brooklyn City & Newtown RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
  2. Boettcher v. DowlingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
  3. Boettcher v. DowlingNew York Court of Appeals · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API