| Figueroa v City of New York |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08279 [101 AD3d 674] |
| December 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Mario Figueroa, Appellant, v City of New York,Defendant, and New York City Transit Authority, Respondent. (And Third-PartyActions.) |
—[*1] Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Steven S. Efron of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), entered September 21, 2011, which, upon thegranting of the motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority pursuant to CPLR 4401for judgment as a matter of law, made at the close of evidence, is in favor of the defendant NewYork City Transit Authority and against him dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted againstthat defendant.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
To succeed on a motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendanthas the burden of showing that there is no rational process by which the jury could find in favorof the plaintiff and against the moving defendant (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553,556 [1997]; Ryan v New York City Tr.Auth., 89 AD3d 1005 [2011]; Magidenko v Consolidated Edison, 3 AD3d 553 [2004]). Indetermining whether the defendant has met this burden, a court must accept the plaintiff'sevidence as true and accord the plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference which canreasonably be drawn from the evidence presented at trial (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90NY2d at 556; Liounis v New York CityTr. Auth., 92 AD3d 643 [2012]; Velez v Goldenberg, 29 AD3d 780, 781 [2006]). Under thecircumstances of this case, the motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority(hereinafter the NYCTA) pursuant to CPLR 4401 was properly granted since the plaintiff, whohad difficulty identifying the location of the subject accident, testified at trial that he did notknow what had caused him to fall (seeKnudsen v Mamaroneck Post No. 90, Dept. of N.Y.—Am. Legion, Inc., 94 AD3d1058 [2012]; Capasso vCapasso, 84 AD3d 997 [2011]; Thompson v Commack Multiplex Cinemas, 83 AD3d 929 [2011]).Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the NYCTA's motion. Dillon, J.P., Leventhal,Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.