From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Orsos v. Hudson Transit Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 26, 2013
111 A.D.3d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-11-26

Ilona ORSOS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. HUDSON TRANSIT CORP., et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Agoglia, Holland & Agoglia, P.C., Jericho (E. Kevin Agoglia of counsel), for appellant. Gallo Vitucci & Klar, New York (Heather C. Ragone of counsel), for respondents.


Agoglia, Holland & Agoglia, P.C., Jericho (E. Kevin Agoglia of counsel), for appellant. Gallo Vitucci & Klar, New York (Heather C. Ragone of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered September 25, 2012, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating the applicability of the emergency doctrine in this action where plaintiff was injured when the bus in which she was a passenger stopped suddenly, hurling her forward into the windshield. Defendants submitted evidence showing that, shortly after the bus had started to move after being stopped at a traffic light, a car drove around the bus erratically and at a high rate of speed, cutting the bus off so closely that the car's rear bumper came within an inch of striking the bus' front bumper. Defendant bus driver was forced to stop suddenly in order to avoid colliding with the car ( see Brooks v. New York City Tr. Auth., 19 A.D.3d 162, 798 N.Y.S.2d 381 [1st Dept.2005]; Gonzalez v. City of New York, 295 A.D.2d 122, 742 N.Y.S.2d 301 [1st Dept.2002] ).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to defendants' negligence. Plaintiff may not rely on statements she entered in the errata sheet to her deposition transcript, as these corrections were untimely ( seeCPLR 3116[a] ).

Plaintiff's assertion in her opposition affidavit, that “[n]o car ever cut the bus off at any time prior to [her] accident,” is also unavailing, since it contradicts her deposition testimony. Moreover, even the corrected version of plaintiff's deposition testimony fails to raise a triable issue of fact. MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, MOSKOWITZ, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Orsos v. Hudson Transit Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 26, 2013
111 A.D.3d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Orsos v. Hudson Transit Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Ilona ORSOS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. HUDSON TRANSIT CORP., et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 26, 2013

Citations

111 A.D.3d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7839
975 N.Y.S.2d 655

Citing Cases

Yasin v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

emergency doctrine defense as a nonnegligent explanation, the driver must establish that he or she was…

Wilson v. Adams

Two seconds later, the bus stops because the Car Defendants' vehicle collided with the outdoor dining shed.…