Batista v New York City Tr. Auth.

2009 NY Slip Op 07195 [66 AD3d 433]

October 8, 2009

Appellate Division, First Department

As corrected through Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Luis Batista, Respondent, v New York City TransitAuthority, Appellant.

—[*1]Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (Lawrence Heisler of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Stuart M. Rissoff, Garden City (William R. Cohen of counsel), forrespondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered September 3, 2008,which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant's motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs,and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissingthe complaint.

The assertion of plaintiff's expert that there were defects in the staircase on which plaintifffell is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to proximate cause, because there is no evidenceconnecting plaintiff's fall to those defects (Kane v Estia Greek Rest., 4 AD3d 189[2004]; see also Telfeyan v City of NewYork, 40 AD3d 372 [2007]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson,Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.