Case Name: Rolando Rosario et al., Appellants, v. New York City Transit Authority, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2004-06-22
Citations: 8 A.D.3d 147
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rolando Rosario et al., Appellants, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 147–148

Head Matter:
Rolando Rosario et al., Appellants, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.
[778 NYS2d 281]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered on or about August 26, 2003, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant, by adducing evidence that it had no notice of the alleged hazard, i.e., a bottle covered with newspaper discarded on subway station stairs, carried its burden as summary judgment movant to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment, and plaintiff failed to meet its consequent burden to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (cf. Giuffrida v Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co., 279 AD2d 403 [2001]). Although plaintiffs urge that the motion be denied to permit additional discovery, they have advanced no nonspeculative basis to believe that additional discovery might yield evidence warranting a different disposition (see Hernandez v Yonkers Contr. Co., 292 AD2d 422, 424 [2002]). Concur— Buckley, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.