Diane Bennett v New York City Transit Authority

Bennett v New York City Tr. Auth. 2004 NY Slip Op 08256 [3 NY3d 745] November 18, 2004 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 19, 2005

[*1] Diane Bennett, Respondent,
v
New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

Decided November 18, 2004

Bennett v New York City Tr. Auth., 4 AD3d 265, affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Steve S. Efron, New York City (Renee L. Cyr of counsel), and Wallace D. Gossett for appellant.

Lonuzzi & Woodland, LLP, Brooklyn (Rebecca Woodland of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. Plaintiff's notice of claim provided information sufficient to apprise defendant New York City Transit Authority of the place, time and nature of [*2]her accident in order to "investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of [the] claim" (see Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389, 392 [2000]). Moreover, triable issues of fact exist whether the Transit Authority had constructive notice that a continuing water condition existed on the platform of its subway station and negligently failed to remedy it.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, etc.