Opinion
2013-12-4
Kagie Hugh KONG, appellant, v. MTA BUS COMPANY, et al., respondents.
Dominick W. Lavelle, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant. Morris, Duffy, Alonso & Faley, New York, N.Y. (Anna J. Ervolina of counsel), for respondents.
Dominick W. Lavelle, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant. Morris, Duffy, Alonso & Faley, New York, N.Y. (Anna J. Ervolina of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), entered April 11, 2012, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
While riding as a passenger on an a bus owned by the defendant MTA Bus Company (hereinafter the MTA), the plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she was jerked forward as the bus swerved to avoid a collision with a vehicle which, without signaling, suddenly had cut in front of the bus from the left. The plaintiff commenced this action against the MTA and the driver of the bus, alleging that the driver was negligent in the operation of the bus. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that, since the bus driver's actions were precipitated by an emergency, the defendants were not liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The Supreme Court granted the motion.
Under the emergency doctrine, “ ‘those faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance, not of their own making, that leaves them with little or no time for reflection or reasonably causes them to be so disturbed that they are compelled to make a quick decision without weighing alternate courses of conduct, may not be negligent if their actions are reasonable and prudent in the context of the emergency’ ” (Tarnavska v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 106 A.D.3d 1079, 1079, 966 N.Y.S.2d 171, quoting Bello v. Transit Auth. of N.Y. City, 12 A.D.3d 58, 60, 783 N.Y.S.2d 648; see Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 77 N.Y.2d 322, 327, 567 N.Y.S.2d 629, 569 N.E.2d 432; Parastatidis v. Holbrook Rental Ctr., Inc., 95 A.D.3d 975, 943 N.Y.S.2d 625; Davis v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 92 A.D.3d 825, 938 N.Y.S.2d 616; Williams v. City of New York, 88 A.D.3d 989, 931 N.Y.S.2d 656; Villar v. MTA Bus Co., 80 A.D.3d 602, 914 N.Y.S.2d 314; Miloscia v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 70 A.D.3d 904, 905, 896 N.Y.S.2d 109).
Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the bus driver was confronted with a sudden and unexpected circumstance not of his own making and that, under the circumstances, his actions were reasonable and prudent in response to the emergency ( see Marri v. New York City Tr. Auth., 106 A.D.3d 699, 700, 963 N.Y.S.2d 736; Villar v. MTA Bus Co., 80 A.D.3d at 603, 914 N.Y.S.2d 314; Alvarado v. New York City Tr. Auth., 106 A.D.3d 845, 846, 964 N.Y.S.2d 649; Miloscia v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 70 A.D.3d at 905, 896 N.Y.S.2d 109; Hotkins v. New York City Tr. Auth., 7 A.D.3d 474, 475, 777 N.Y.S.2d 469). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Tarnavska v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 106 A.D.3d at 1079, 966 N.Y.S.2d 171; Miloscia v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 70 A.D.3d at 905, 896 N.Y.S.2d 109).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. RIVERA, J.P., SKELOS, CHAMBERS and HALL, JJ., concur.