Opinion
2014-05-1
Cuman CROPPER, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. M.D. STEWART, et al., Defendants, New York Cit Transit Authority, Defendant–Appellant, Paper Cab Corporation, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (Lawrence Heisler of counsel), for appellant. Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., New York (Brian J. Shoot of counsel), for Cuman Cropper, respondent.
Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (Lawrence Heisler of counsel), for appellant.Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., New York (Brian J. Shoot of counsel), for Cuman Cropper, respondent.
Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, for Paper Cab Corporation and Said N. Faoui, respondents.
, J.P., FRIEDMAN, ANDRIAS, SAXE, DeGRASSE, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna Mills, J.), entered November 15, 2012, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, found defendant New York City Transit Authority (N.Y.CTA), liable for plaintiff's injuries, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated and the complaint dismissed as against N.Y.CTA. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
*418 A defendant is not liable where he or she is faced with a sudden and unforeseen occurrence that was not of his own making ( see Mendez v. City of New York, 110 A.D.3d 421, 972 N.Y.S.2d 242 [1st Dept.2013] ). Here, defendant cab driver opened his driver's side door, causing plaintiff to be thrown from his bicycle into the path of an oncoming bus. Testimony concerning the length of time that elapsed from plaintiff being thrown from his bike and the impact with the bus consistently stated that it was only an instant or a second, an insufficient length of time to constitute actionable negligence ( see Mendez at 422, 972 N.Y.S.2d 242;see also Splain v. New York City Tr. Auth., 180 A.D.2d 454, 579 N.Y.S.2d 380 [1st Dept.1992],lv. denied80 N.Y.2d 759, 589 N.Y.S.2d 309, 602 N.E.2d 1125 [1992] ). The only evidence that could have served as the basis for the jury's verdict against N.Y.CTA was erroneously admitted, since it was based in whole or in part upon N.Y.CTA's internal rules and standards which hold N.Y.CTA to a higher standard of care than the common law ( see Williams v. New York City Tr. Auth., 108 A.D.3d 403, 404, 969 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept.2013] ).
In light of the foregoing, we need not consider appellant's remaining contentions.