Rosario v. New York City Transit Authority

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered on or about August 26, 2003, which granted

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.