Brunson v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brunson v. City of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 4247, 150 A.D.3d 1189, 52 N.Y.S.3d 882

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

DecidedMay 31, 2017

Docket2015-07454

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4247 (Brunson v. City of New York) 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

Brunson v. City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 4247, 150 A.D.3d 1189, 52 N.Y.S.3d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), entered May 22, 2015, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Metropolitan Transportation Authority which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff alleged that on September 28, 2012, at approximately 10:40 a.m., she was a passenger on a Q40 bus, and when the bus was at a bus stop on 143rd Street near the intersection of 130th Avenue in Queens, she was caused to fall violently to the floor and sustained serious personal injuries. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (hereinafter the MTA; hereinafter together the Authority defendants), alleging that they were negligent in, among other things, the ownership, maintenance, and control of the subject bus. The Authority defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them, arguing that they did not own, operate, maintain, manage, or control the subject bus. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

*1190 In support of their motion, the Authority defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them by demonstrating that they did not own, operate, maintain, or control the subject bus, that the subject bus was owned and operated by nonparty MTA Bus Company, and that the MTA is not vicariously liable for the torts of its subsidiaries such as MTA Bus Company (see Public Authorities Law § 1266 [5]; Fridman v New York City Tr. Auth., 131 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2015]; Mayayev v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. Bus, 74 AD3d 910, 911 [2010]; Rampersaud v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. of the State of N.Y., 73 AD3d 888, 888 [2010]; Emerick v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 272 AD2d 150, 150 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Fridman v New York City Tr. Auth., 131 AD3d at 1203-1204).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the Authority defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Maltese and Duffy, 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, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), entered May 22, 2015, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Metropolitan Transportation Authority which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff alleged that on September 28, 2012, at approximately 10:40 a.m., she was a passenger on a Q40 bus, and when the bus was at a bus stop on 143rd Street near the intersection of 130th Avenue in Queens, she was caused to fall violently to the floor and sustained serious personal injuries. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (hereinafter the MTA; hereinafter together the Authority defendants), alleging that they were negligent in, among other things, the ownership, maintenance, and control of the subject bus. The Authority defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them, arguing that they did not own, operate, maintain, manage, or control the subject bus. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

*1190 In support of their motion, the Authority defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them by demonstrating that they did not own, operate, maintain, or control the subject bus, that the subject bus was owned and operated by nonparty MTA Bus Company, and that the MTA is not vicariously liable for the torts of its subsidiaries such as MTA Bus Company (see Public Authorities Law § 1266 [5]; Fridman v New York City Tr. Auth., 131 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2015]; Mayayev v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. Bus, 74 AD3d 910, 911 [2010]; Rampersaud v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. of the State of N.Y., 73 AD3d 888, 888 [2010]; Emerick v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 272 AD2d 150, 150 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Fridman v New York City Tr. Auth., 131 AD3d at 1203-1204).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the Authority defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4247, 150 A.D.3d 1189, 52 N.Y.S.3d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brunson-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack