FRANCISCO MERINO, APPELANT, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTH., RESPONDENT.
89 N.Y.2d 824, 675 N.E.2d 1222, 653 N.Y.S.2d 270 (1996).
November 14, 1996
1 No. 250 (1996 NY Int. 215)
Decided November 14, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Brian J. Isaac, for Appellant.
Lawrence A. Silver, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. On
April 9, 1989, after leaving work at 3:00 A.M. and consuming several
beers, plaintiff went to the 183rd Street subway station in the Bronx.
Dizzy and affected by the alcohol, plaintiff, who had been standing at
the edge of the platform, found himself on the tracks as a train
approached. He was struck by the train and suffered various injuries
including the loss of his left arm.
In his suit against the New York City Transit Authority plaintiff
alleged several theories of negligence. After trial the court set
aside a verdict in plaintiff's favor and ordered a new trial, and the
Appellate Division affirmed (183 AD2d 458). After a second plaintiff's
verdict, a divided Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the
complaint (___ AD2d ___). The court concluded, in essence, that
plaintiff had failed to establish the Transit Authority's negligence
in lighting the accident site and causation.
As the Appellate Division correctly determined, plaintiff failed to
show that defendant breached any duty owed to him. Plaintiff,
moreover, failed to establish that an internal Transit Authority
station planning guide, on which his expert relied to claim the
station had inadequate lighting, constituted a standard of reasonable
care applicable to this station (see, Schwartz v New York State
Thruway Auth., 95 AD2d 928, affd 61 NY2d 955). Even if plaintiff had
proven breach of a duty, he failed to show that the defendant's
alleged negligence was a substantial factor in causing his injury
(Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Co., 51 NY2d 308, 315).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SNIPPETS:
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTH., RESPONDENT.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Dizzy and affected by the alcohol, plaintiff, who had been standing at the edge of the
In his suit against the New York City Transit Authority plaintiff alleged several theories of
After trial the court set aside a verdict in plaintiff's favor and ordered a new trial, and
The court concluded, in essence, that plaintiff had failed to establish the Transit
Plaintiff, moreover, failed to establish that an internal Transit Authority station planning
Even if plaintiff had proven breach of a duty, he failed to show that the defendant's alleged
Co., 51 NY2d 308, 315).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Levine and Ciparick concur.
Judge Smith took no part.
|
