Baptiste v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baptiste v. New York City Transit Authority

276 A.D.2d 730, 715 N.Y.S.2d 156, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10917

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 30, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 730 (Baptiste v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baptiste v. New York City Transit Authority, 276 A.D.2d 730, 715 N.Y.S.2d 156, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated October 22, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[731]*731Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court held that the defendants cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts committed by their employee bus driver in attempting to eject the plaintiff Marie Jean Baptiste from a bus. There exist issues of fact as to whether the bus driver was acting within the scope of his employment and in furtherance of the defendants’ business during the course of the incident with the injured plaintiff and whether his actions could have reasonably been anticipated by the defendants (see, Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302; Jaccarino v Supermarkets GenCorp., 252 AD2d 572; Kirkman v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 204 AD2d 401, 402; Santamarina v Citrynell, 203 AD2d 57, 59; Adler v Warren, 104 AD2d 476). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated October 22, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[731]*731Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court held that the defendants cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts committed by their employee bus driver in attempting to eject the plaintiff Marie Jean Baptiste from a bus. There exist issues of fact as to whether the bus driver was acting within the scope of his employment and in furtherance of the defendants’ business during the course of the incident with the injured plaintiff and whether his actions could have reasonably been anticipated by the defendants (see, Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302; Jaccarino v Supermarkets GenCorp., 252 AD2d 572; Kirkman v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 204 AD2d 401, 402; Santamarina v Citrynell, 203 AD2d 57, 59; Adler v Warren, 104 AD2d 476). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 730, 715 N.Y.S.2d 156, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baptiste-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack