From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Villar v. MTA Bus Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 11, 2011
80 A.D.3d 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 2010-05855.

January 11, 2011.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), entered March 26, 2010, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Latos Latos Di Pippo, P.C., Astoria, N.Y. (Peter Latos and Andrew Latos of counsel), for appellant.

Marulli, Lindenbaum, Edelman Tomaszewski, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard O. Mannarino of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Austin and Roman, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While the plaintiff was a passenger on an M15 express bus in Queens, she allegedly sustained injuries when she was thrown into the seat in front of her after the bus stopped suddenly to avoid a collision with a car which had cut into its lane. The bus was owned by the defendant MTA Bus Company and operated by the defendant Tze M. Cheng.

Pursuant to the emergency doctrine, "when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context" ( Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327; see Evans v Bosl, 75 AD3d 491, 492; Miloscia v New York City Bd. of Educ, 70 AD3d 904, 905).

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that Tze M. Cheng 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 Bello v Transit Auth. of NY City, 12 AD3d 58, 60-61). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Evans v Bosl, 75 AD3d at 492; Miloscia v New York City Bd. of Educ., 70 AD3d at 905).


Summaries of

Villar v. MTA Bus Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 11, 2011
80 A.D.3d 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Villar v. MTA Bus Co.

Case Details

Full title:CARMEN R. VILLAR, Appellant, v. MTA BUS COMPANY et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jan 11, 2011

Citations

80 A.D.3d 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 216
914 N.Y.S.2d 314

Citing Cases

Tarnavska v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth.

y sustained injuries when she was thrown to the floor after the bus in which she was riding stopped short to…

Kong v. Mta Bus Co.

The Supreme Court granted the motion. Under the emergency doctrine, “ ‘those faced with a sudden and…