- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Bazarewski v. Town of Islip
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03418
Background
Plaintiff Craig Bazarewski commenced this action against the Long Island Railroad (LIRR), the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), the Town of Islip, and the County of Suffolk to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when he tripped in a pothole in a parking lot near a railroad platform at the Ronkonkoma LIRR Station. The parking lot was a multi-carrier facility that also served Suffolk County Transit buses.
The MTA defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that, as abutting property owners, they were not liable. The Town and County separately moved for summary judgment on the ground that they lacked prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition. Supreme Court, Suffolk County (George M. Nolan, J.), granted all three motions. Plaintiff appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs. Addressing the MTA defendants first, the Court applied the multi-carrier facility exception from Bingham v. New York City Transit Authority, 8 NY3d 176, 181. While common carriers must maintain safe means of ingress and egress in areas served by a single carrier, this duty does not extend to common areas in a multi-carrier facility. Because the Ronkonkoma parking lot also served Suffolk County Transit buses, the MTA defendants had no duty to maintain it.
As to the Town and County, the Court applied the prior written notice doctrine. Both municipalities had adopted prior written notice laws, and each demonstrated the absence of the requisite written notice. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to show an exception—either that the municipality affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence or that a special use conferred a special benefit on the municipality. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on either exception.
Takeaways
This decision illustrates two distinct defenses that can shield different categories of defendants in parking lot injury cases. For transit authorities, the multi-carrier facility doctrine limits common-carrier duty to areas exclusively serving a single carrier’s passengers. For municipalities, prior written notice statutes remain a powerful defense, requiring plaintiffs to identify specific written complaints about the exact defective condition. The two-pronged approach here left the plaintiff without a viable defendant despite a clear injury on public property.
Why It Matters
Personal injury practitioners must carefully evaluate the ownership and operational structure of transportation facilities before filing suit. A parking lot at a train station may seem like the railroad’s responsibility, but if the lot also serves buses or other carriers, the Bingham multi-carrier exception may eliminate the railroad’s duty of care. Similarly, municipal defendants will aggressively assert prior written notice defenses, and plaintiffs must conduct thorough pre-suit investigation to identify any prior complaints. This case demonstrates how layered defenses can effectively immunize all potential defendants from parking lot defect claims.