Solazzo v. New York City Transit Authority

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 6 N.Y.3d 734, 810 N.Y.S.2d 121, 843 N.E.2d 748, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 3392

Decision Date: 12/20/2005

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Solazzo v. New York City Transit Authority, 6 N.Y.3d 734, 810 N.Y.S.2d 121, 843 N.E.2d 748, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 3392 (2005)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 2005

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 1% most-cited · cited by 144 decisions

144

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.125

N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.4

S.D.N.Y.3

Conn. App. Ct.1

E.D.N.Y1

N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.1

Most recently cited by10

2026Rowland v. Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr. N.Y. App. Div.
2026Whelan v. Buffalo Mun. Hous. Auth. N.Y. App. Div.
2026Murphy v. City Mini Stor. LLC N.Y. App. Div.
2026Batista v. Allerton Ave Estates, LLC N.Y. App. Div.
2025Wechsler v. Ave. L., LLC N.Y. App. Div.
2025Leonard-Carter v. United States E.D.N.Y
2025Jackson v. City of New York N.Y. App. Div.
2025Padilla v. 76 Eleventh Ave. Prop. Owner, LLC N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty.
2025Davide v. Fairharbor Owners Inc. N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty.
2024Flores v. New York City Tr. Auth. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.

Cites 2 casesshowing 1

Valentine v. City of New York

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Michael J. Solazzo, Jr., et al., Appellants, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York City (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellants.
New York City Transit Authority, Law Department, Brooklyn (Lawrence A. Silver and Wallace D. Gossett of counsel), for respondents.

majority Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

A property owner will not be held liable in negligence for a plaintiffs injuries sustained as the result of an icy condition occurring during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter (see Valentine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 381, 383 [1st Dept 1982], affd 57 NY2d 932 [1982]). Here, it had been snowing, sleeting and raining on and off all day and the steps down into the subway were exposed to those weather conditions. Thus, summary judgment was properly granted in defendants’ favor.

Plaintiffs argue that the ongoing storm doctrine should not apply because his injury was caused by a recurring hazardous condition of which defendant Transit Authority was aware. A general awareness that the stairs and platforms become wet during inclement weather was insufficient to establish constructive notice of the specific condition causing plaintiffs injury (see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967, 969 [1994]).

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

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.