Legal Opinion

Nayman v. New York City Transit Authority

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

Decided January 10, 2006PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered March 30, 2004, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if the storm that resulted in the complained-of hazard had stopped by the time of plaintiffs accident, it is clear from plaintiffs testimony that the period of cessation was only about one hour, an interval too brief to have given rise to a legally enforceable duty on defendant’s part to remediate the hazard (see Valentine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 381 [1982], affd 57 NY2d…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Valentine v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. Valentine v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
  3. Urena v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Rodriguez v. New York City Housing AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
  2. Krinsky v. FortunatoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API