TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bujosa v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Cesar T. Bujosa, as Administrator of the Estate of Irma Santos, Also Known as Irma De Lavega and Irma Bujosa v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Bujosa v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 44 A.D.2d 849 (1974)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 28, 1974
Citations
44 A.D.2d 849355 N.Y.S.2d 8001974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4908

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 6, 1973, which (1) granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a statement of readiness and (2) denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, without prejudice to renewal upon new papers. Order reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, defendant’s cross motion granted and plaintiff’s motion dismissed as academic. On November 19, 1971, plaintiff’s decedent was struck and killed by a Long Island Railroad (LIRR) train. This action was thereafter duly commenced against defendant, the Metropolitan- Transportation Authority (MTA). No action was brought against LIRR. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the MTA for the alleged negligence of LIRR. We take judicial notice of the fact that MTA took over ownership of all the stock of LIRR under the powers granted to it by title 11 of article 5 of the Public Authorities Law (L. 1965, ch. 324, § 3). As a general rule, *850 a parent corporation will not be held liable for the torts of its subsidiary corporation, notwithstanding the former’s complete ownership of the latter’s stock (Berkey v. Third Ave. Ry. Co., 244 N. Y. 84 ; 10 Fletcher’s Cyclopedia Corporations [perm, ed.], § 4878). In our opinion, no substantial issues of fact have been raised by plaintiff which may warrant a finding that the relationship of defendant and the LIRE is such that the separate corporate status of the latter may be disregarded (Rudy v. Metropolitan Commuters Transp. Auth., 42 A D 2d 910). Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1981: 11984: 11991: 12014: 119812026peak 1981 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cusick v. Lutheran Medical Center105 A.D.2d 681 (1984)
  2. Soanes v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad89 F.R.D. 430 (E.D.N.Y. 1981)
  3. Garcia v. Union Carbide Corp.176 A.D.2d 219 (1991)
  4. People v. Long Island Railroad45 Misc. 3d 799 (2014)

Most recent

  1. People v. Long Island Railroad45 Misc. 3d 799 (2014)
  2. Garcia v. Union Carbide Corp.176 A.D.2d 219 (1991)
  3. Cusick v. Lutheran Medical Center105 A.D.2d 681 (1984)
  4. Soanes v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad89 F.R.D. 430 (E.D.N.Y. 1981)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Berkey v. Third Ave. Ry. Co., 155 N.E. 58 (N.Y. 1926) 288

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list