# Nowack v. New York City Transit Authority

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 29, 2007 · 40 A.D.3d 510

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5726905

## Case

- **Full name:** Sebastian Nowack v. New York City Transit Authority
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** May 29, 2007
- **Citations:** 40 A.D.3d 510; 834 N.Y.S.2d 858
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5726905

## Opinion text

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered October 4, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss, on qualified immunity grounds, that branch of the complaint alleging that plaintiffs injurious fall between subway cars was proximately caused by inadequate safety chain devices between the cars, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The opinion of defendant’s expert engineer that, inter alia, the safety chain restraint at issue, as modified over the years, was a rational, efficient and practical design utilized for generations in New York City’s narrow, twisting and undulating subway tunnels, an opinion corroborated in part by a 1982 National Transportation Safety Board study as well as by internal Transit Authority correspondence and memoranda included in that study, established defendant’s prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment on this aspect of the *511 negligence claim. Plaintiffs papers in opposition failed to raise a triable factual issue in support of his argument that the safety-chain restraint system evolved without adequate study, or that its design and use lacked a reasonable basis under the circumstances (see Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579 [I960]).
We have examined plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Williams and Buckley, JJ.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5726905. Public record. Not legal advice.