From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Culmone v. N.Y. Cty. Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2007
40 A.D.3d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-06968.

May 8, 2007.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated May 31, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Anita Isola of counsel), for appellant.

Kahn Gordon Timko Rodriques, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Mitchell F. Senft of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Miller, J.P., Angiolillo, Carni and Dickerson, JJ.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff Josephine Culmone (hereinafter the plaintiff) was boarding a New York City bus operated by the defendant agency when the bus driver allegedly ordered the passenger ahead of her to get off the bus. As that passenger turned around to exit the bus, he knocked the plaintiff over, causing her to fall off the bus and into the street.

The plaintiff then commenced this action against the defendant, and her husband asserted a derivative claim. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff's injuries were solely attributable to the actions of the other passenger, and were not the result of any negligence on the part of the bus driver. The plaintiff opposed the motion without tendering any additional evidence. The court denied the motion. We reverse.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering evidence that the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury was the intentional or negligent conduct of the passenger ahead of her, and negligence on the bus driver's part, if any, merely furnished an occasion for the injury-producing event, which was unforeseeable as a matter of law ( compare Marenghi v New York City Tr. Auth., 151 AD2d 272 [1989], affd 74 NY2d 822, with Walton v Doyle, 9 NY2d 783). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue of fact regarding the defendant's negligence or the foreseeability of the other passenger's conduct. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Culmone v. N.Y. Cty. Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2007
40 A.D.3d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Culmone v. N.Y. Cty. Transit Auth

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPHINE CULMONE et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY…

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

Date published: May 8, 2007

Citations

40 A.D.3d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 4063
835 N.Y.S.2d 689

Citing Cases

McKesson v. Mta/Long Island Bus

Once the movant has demonstrated a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgement, the burden shifts to the…

McKESSON v. MTA/LONG ISLAND BUS

(Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 (1980)). Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the defendant has…