From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aronov v. Bruins Transportation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 28, 2002
294 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

00-11222

Argued November 26, 2001

May 28, 2002.

In consolidated actions to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the defendant SGS Travelscope, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated October 24, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Friedberg Raven, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Rubin, Hay Gould, P.C., Framingham, Mass. [Rodney E. Gould of counsel]), for appellant.

Kreindler Kreindler, New York, N.Y. (Noah H. Kushlefsky of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents.

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

On December 24, 1998, a bus en route from Brooklyn to Atlantic City, New Jersey, with 22 passengers on board spun out of control on the Garden State Parkway, causing the death of eight passengers and injury to the other 14 passengers and the driver. The driver was employed by the defendant Bruins Transportation, Inc. (hereinafter Bruins), the lessee of the bus. The defendant SGS Travelscope, Inc. (hereinafter SGS) was the travel agent which retained Bruins for the Atlantic City bus trip.

SGS established its entitlement to summary judgment. "Where tour participants are transported by an independent contractor, the tour operator is not responsible for an accident which occurs due to the negligence of the independent contractor" (Cohen v. Heritage Motor Tours, 205 A.D.2d 105, 107; see Lowy v. Heimann's Bus Tours, 240 A.D.2d 548; Dorkin v. American Express Co., 43 A.D.2d 877). Here, the tour bus was owned and operated by an independent contractor. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that SGS's advertisements constituted a holding out to the public which would estop it from disclaiming liability for the alleged negligence of Bruins (cf. Rovinsky v. Hispanidad Holidays, 180 A.D.2d 673).

PRUDENTI, P.J., S. MILLER, McGINITY and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Aronov v. Bruins Transportation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 28, 2002
294 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Aronov v. Bruins Transportation

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL ARONOV, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. BRUINS…

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

Date published: May 28, 2002

Citations

294 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
742 N.Y.S.2d 389

Citing Cases

Yao v. World Wide Travel of Greater N.Y. Ltd.

It is well-settled that independent travel or booking agents who package tours are not liable for accidents…

Yao v. World Wide Travel of Greater N.Y.

[3, 4] The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of Sunflower Express’s motion which was for…