From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rivas v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 11, 1994
203 A.D.2d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 11, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the submission of an attorney's affidavit and various deposition transcripts constituted competent evidence which was sufficient to support the motion of the defendants Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority (hereinafter MSBA) and Patrick for summary judgment (see, Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 N.Y.2d 1092; Gaeta v New York News, 62 N.Y.2d 340; Ayala v V O Press Co., 126 A.D.2d 229). Moreover, the purported issues of fact raised by the appellant in opposition to the motion were either totally irrelevant to the question of MSBA's and Patrick's possible liability or were patently without merit.

Similarly unavailing is the appellant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in applying the emergency doctrine to the facts of this case. The evidence in the record establishes as a matter of law that when the appellant's vehicle crossed over into the opposing lane of traffic only 30 feet in front of the bus which the defendant Patrick was operating, Patrick was confronted with a sudden and unanticipated situation (see generally, Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 N.Y.2d 322; Denicker v Denicker, 173 A.D.2d 516) which left him with only two seconds to react. Under these circumstances, the emergency doctrine is clearly applicable and MSBA and Patrick cannot be held liable for the accident (see, Rowlands v Parks, 2 N.Y.2d 64; Glick v City of New York, 191 A.D.2d 677; Hornacek v Hallenbeck, 185 A.D.2d 561; Serbak v Ulrich, 178 A.D.2d 1012; Moller v Lieber, 156 A.D.2d 434; Tenenbaum v Martin, 131 A.D.2d 660). Patrick's actions of stepping on the brakes and swerving to the left in an attempt to avoid the collision were entirely reasonable in view of the emergency, and the appellant's conclusory attack on Patrick's judgment in this regard is unavailing (see, e.g., Lackner v Roth, 166 A.D.2d 686). Sullivan, J.P., Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rivas v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 11, 1994
203 A.D.2d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Rivas v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

Case Details

Full title:FLORENTINO RIVAS, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN SUBURBAN BUS AUTHORITY et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 11, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
610 N.Y.S.2d 79

Citing Cases

Youthkins v. Cascio

Furthermore, in a case such as this involving a death, the plaintiff is not held to the high degree of proof…

Viera v. Lexington Leasing Co.

of fact, ( see, Morgan v. Ski Roundtop, 290 AD2d 618 [3rd Dept. 2002]; Cathey v. Gartner, 15 AD3d 435 [2nd…