You are here: / / NON-MANDATORY STANDARDS FOR THE GAP BETWEEN A SUBWAY TRAIN AND THE PLATFORM...
,

NON-MANDATORY STANDARDS FOR THE GAP BETWEEN A SUBWAY TRAIN AND THE PLATFORM PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HOWEVER THE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR GAP-RELATED ACCIDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, ordering a new trial, in a brief memorandum with no description of the facts, determined evidence of prior accidents involving the gap between the subway train and the platform should not have been admitted because there was no showing the conditions were the same. However the evidence of the non-mandatory gap standards were properly admitted:

In these circumstances, the trial court properly admitted plaintiff’s expert testimony regarding non-mandatory gap standards promulgated by the American Public Transit Association and the Public Transportation Safety Board … . However, Supreme Court abused its discretion as a matter of law by admitting evidence of prior accidents at New York City subway stations involving the gap between the train car and platform in the absence of a showing that the relevant conditions of those accidents were substantially the same as plaintiff’s accident … . Daniels v New York City Tr. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 02027, CtApp 3-24-20

 

You might also like
Plaintiff’s Lost Profits Deemed “General Damages,” Not “Consequential Damages,” Re: a Distribution Contract in which Plaintiff Agreed to Resell Defendant’s Product
WHETHER ADIRONDACK WATERWAY IS NAVIGABLE IN FACT, AND THEREFORE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE, COULD NOT BE DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW.
Presumption of Validity of Town’s Property Tax Assessment Not Rebutted by Objective Data
BRADY MATERIAL WHICH CONTRADICTED THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE, CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).
PLAINTIFFS, THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, REPRESENTED BY THE SAME ATTORNEY, REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 50-h HEARING(S) UNLESS EACH PLAINTIFF WAS PRESENT WHEN THE OTHER TESTIFIED; THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL OF ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR THE 50-h HEARING(S) (CT APP).
UNDER THE FACTS, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO CONSIDER COERCION IN THE SECOND DEGREE AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT COERCION IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND COERCION IN THE SECOND DEGREE HAVE IDENTICAL ELEMENTS. 
Fact that Property Has a Use “Auxiliary or Incidental to the Main Exempt Purpose” Does Not Defeat the Real Property Tax Exemption Under RPTL 420-a
An Unconditional Guaranty of Payment of a Another’s Obligations Is Enforceable by Summary Judgment In Lieu of a Complaint In New York, Even In the Face of an Allegation the Underlying Judgment Was the Result of Collusion and Fraud

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

TESTIMONY SUPPORTING THE ADMISSION OF DNA PROFILES WAS HEARSAY WHICH VIOLATED... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING, AS OPPOSED TO WIND, CAUSED THE PROPERTY DAMAGE...