AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

ROLANDO ROSARIO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Respondent.

Defendant, by adducing evidence that it had no notice of the alleged hazard, i.e., a bottle covered with newspaper discarded on subway station stairs, carried its burden as summary judgment movant to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment, and plaintiff failed to meet its consequent burden to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( cf. Giuffrida v. Metro N. Commuter RR. Co., 279 A.D.2d 403). Although plaintiffs urge that the motion be denied to permit additional discovery, they have advanced no non-speculative basis to believe that additional discovery might yield evidence warranting a different disposition ( see Hernandez v. Yonkers Constr. Co., 292 A.D.2d 422, 424).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ROSARIO v. NEW YORK CITY TR. AUTH
(Jun 22, 2004)