From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 19, 2004
11 A.D.3d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

4330

October 19, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered May 23, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of deeming defendants' answers to assert the affirmative defense of medical emergency, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.


Defendants' submissions in opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether defendant bus driver's loss of vehicular control was attributable to an unforeseeable medical emergency, and thus warranted denial of the motion ( see Thomas v. Hulslander, 233 AD2d 567). Although defendants have not pleaded the affirmative defense of medical emergency in their answers, in view of the evidence submitted in opposition to plaintiff's motion we deem defendants' answers amended to assert the defense ( see Dampskibsselskabet Torm A/S v. P.L. Thomas Paper Co., 26 AD2d 347, 352).


Summaries of

Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 19, 2004
11 A.D.3d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority

Case Details

Full title:YVETTE RIVERA, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 19, 2004

Citations

11 A.D.3d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
782 N.Y.S.2d 912

Citing Cases

Thirty Six W. Thirty Six Assets LLC v. New Forest Nails Spa Inc.

And in light of the constructive-eviction-related allegations pleaded in support of defendants'…

Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Vedova

For the reasons set forth below, the defendant mortgagors" assertion that the plaintiff lacks standing to sue…