Abramowitz v Metropolitan Tr. Auth. of the State of New York

[*1] Abramowitz v Metropolitan Tr. Auth. of the State of New York 2014 NY Slip Op 50693(U) Decided on April 30, 2014 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 30, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Ling-Cohan, JJ
570090/14.

Roy Abramowitz, Plaintiff-Respondent, - -

against

Metropolitan Transit Authority of the State of New York, Defendant, - and - Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company, as limited by its briefs, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered October 7, 2013, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it.

Per Curiam.

Order (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered October 7, 2013, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs.

We agree that summary judgment dismissal of this trip-and-fall negligence action is unwarranted. The limited record now before us raises several triable issues, including, but not limited to, whether defendant had actual or constructive notice of the alleged uneven edge of the train station platform and, if so, whether defendant met its responsibility as a common carrier to use "due care to provide proper and safe means of getting from the platform of the [station] to the platform of the [train cars]" (Boyce v Manhattan Ry. Co., 314 NY 314, 318 [1890]; see Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246, 248-249 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 670 [1984]; see also Bingham v New York City Tr. Auth., 8 NY3d 176 [2007]). To the extent that defendant now appears to challenge the continued efficacy of the above-cited cases, it suffices to say that "it is not this Court's prerogative to overrule or disregard a precedent of the Court of Appeals" (Calcano v Rodriguez, 91 AD3d 468, 469 [2012]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 30, 2014