Singh v McCrossen

Annotate this Case
Singh v McCrossen 2013 NY Slip Op 07690 Decided on November 19, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 19, 2013
Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, JJ.
11123 307533/09

[*1]Radhika Singh, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Gayle H. McCrossen, et al., Defendants, Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.




The Law Office of Thomas J. Lavin, Bronx (John O'Halloran of
counsel), for appellant.
McAndrew, Conboy & Prisco, Melville (Mary C. Azzaretto of
counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered July 26, 2012, which granted the motion of defendants-respondents (Gannett) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Gannett established entitlement to summary judgment in this action where plaintiff was injured when, while walking to a bus stop on Gannett's property, she was struck by a car driven by her coworker defendant McCrossen as she was leaving work. The motion court properly found that Gannett's failure to provide a sidewalk leading from the front door of its building to a County bus stop on the property was not a proximate cause of plaintiff's accident as a matter of law (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315 [1980]). Instead, the fact that there were no sidewalks in the area of plaintiff's accident merely furnished the occasion for the accident (see Sheehan v City of New York, 40 NY2d 496, 503 [1976]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 19, 2013

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.