Even if the storm that resulted in the complained-of hazard had stopped by the time of plaintiff's accident, it is clear from plaintiff's 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,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
NAYMAN v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
25 A.D.3d 376 (2006)
808 N.Y.S.2d 651
FRANCINE NAYMAN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
January 10, 2006.
January 10, 2006.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
