Case ID: misc2d_155/html/0001-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alvin Goldstein, Respondent, v Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company et al., Appellants.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    January 14, 1993
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Brody & Fabiani, New York City (Ellen S. Davis and Roger K. Solymosy of counsel), for appellants. Berman, Paley, Gold-stein & Kannry, New York City (David R. Paley of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered August 13, 1991 reversed, with $10 costs, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint dismissed.

The plaintiff’s admitted refusal to pay the one-way fare or leave the commuter train — conduct which resulted in a delay of approximately 25 minutes to the other passengers — provided a lawful basis to arrest plaintiff for disorderly conduct (see, Matter of Charles M., 143 AD2d 96) or theft of services (see, Burroughs v New York City Tr. Auth., 112 AD2d 186). That plaintiff may have felt aggrieved because monthly commutation tickets were unavailable for purchase on the day involved (a Sunday) does not render actionable the otherwise lawful conduct of the defendant railroad company’s employees in removing plaintiff from the train and effectuating his arrest (see, Monnier v New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 175 NY 281). Where, as here, the facts leading up to the arrest are undisputed, the existence of probable cause is for the court to determine as a matter of law (Veras v Truth Verification Corp., 87 AD2d 381, 384, affd 57 NY2d 947).

Parness, J. P., Miller and McCooe, JJ., concur.