From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Velazquez v. Caravan Bus Serv

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 2004
4 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-02495.

Decided February 9, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated February 28, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Connors Connors, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (John P. Connors, Jr., and Maria E. Cannon of counsel), for appellants.

Sanocki Newman Turret, LLP, New York, N.Y. (David B. Turret of counsel), for respondent.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO and THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant Caravan Bus Service, Inc., a/k/a Caravan Bus Transportation (hereinafter Caravan) provided bus service under a contract with the defendants New York City Board of Education (hereinafter the Board) and the City of New York. The bus was driven by the defendant Louis Hevia. On April 29, 2000, the plaintiff broke her ankle as she exited the bus via a door behind the driver. She commenced this action against the defendants, alleging, inter alia, negligence on the part of all of the defendants, and negligent supervision on the part of Caravan, the City, and the Board.

The defendants initially established their entitlement to summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff failed to identify the dangerous or defective condition which caused her injury (see Moody v. Woolworth Co., 288 A.D.2d 446; cf. Bernstein v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 1020, 1022). The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact by presenting evidentiary proof in admissible form as to whether a dangerous condition caused her fall, as opposed to her own misstep ( see Stissi v. Gurino, 302 A.D.2d 449, 450; Veccia v. Clearmeadow Pistol Club, 300 A.D.2d 472). In opposition, the plaintiff introduced only her own conclusory statement that the steps were too steep. This was insufficient to raise a question of fact ( see Capraro v. Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 245 A.D.2d 256). Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Velazquez v. Caravan Bus Serv

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 2004
4 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Velazquez v. Caravan Bus Serv

Case Details

Full title:MIRTHA VELAZQUEZ, respondent, v. CARAVAN BUS SERVICE, INC., A/K/A CARAVAN…

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

Date published: Feb 9, 2004

Citations

4 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
771 N.Y.S.2d 375

Citing Cases

Poelker v. Swan Lake Golf Corp.

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff stated at his deposition…

Lissauer v. Shaarei Hatzlucha

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when he fell down an exterior stairway located at a synagogue…