| Pena v New York City Tr. Auth. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01585 [48 AD3d 309] |
| February 21, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Marie Rose Pena, Appellant, v New York City TransitAuthority, Respondent. |
—[*1] Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (Anita Isola of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbe F. Payne, J.), entered December 14,2006, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The trial court properly directed a verdict in favor of defendant at the close of plaintiff's casein this action where plaintiff was injured when she fell as she descended a tiled ramp indefendant's subway station during the course of an ongoing snowstorm, as it is unreasonable torequire defendant to keep the floors of its station dry during the course of the inclement weather(see Hussein v New York City Tr. Auth., 266 AD2d 146 [1999]). Nor was the trialevidence sufficient to show that plaintiff's injuries were the result of a recurring hazardouscondition of which defendant had knowledge. Defendant's general awareness that the subjectramp would become wet during inclement weather is "insufficient to establish constructive noticeof the specific condition causing plaintiff's injury" (Solazzo v New York City Tr. Auth., 6 NY3d 734, 735 [2005]).
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in granting defendant's motion to quashthe subpoena issued by plaintiff during trial seeking the production of defendant's logbooks. Thecircumstances presented do not warrant allowing plaintiff to conduct additional discovery almosta year after the filing of the note of issue (see Genevit Creations v Gueits Adams & Co.,306 AD2d 142 [2003], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 1 NY3d 617 [2004];Henry L. Fox Co. v Sleicher, 186 AD2d 537 [1992]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Acosta, JJ.