Curley-Concepcion v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curley-Concepcion v. New York City Transit Authority

276 A.D.2d 463, 714 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9822

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 2, 2000·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damage! for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated September 23, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied her cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of serious injury.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To establish a prima facie case of negligence against a common carrier for injuries sustained by a passenger when the vehicle came to a halt, the plaintiff must establish that the stop caused a jerk or lurch that was “unusual and violent” (Urquhart v New York City Tr. Auth., 85 NY2d 828, 830; Trudell v New York Rapid Tr. Corp., 281 NY 82, 85). The plaintiff failed to satisfy the standard in this case. In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary to address the plaintiffs remaining contention. Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damage! for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated September 23, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied her cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of serious injury.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To establish a prima facie case of negligence against a common carrier for injuries sustained by a passenger when the vehicle came to a halt, the plaintiff must establish that the stop caused a jerk or lurch that was “unusual and violent” (Urquhart v New York City Tr. Auth., 85 NY2d 828, 830; Trudell v New York Rapid Tr. Corp., 281 NY 82, 85). The plaintiff failed to satisfy the standard in this case. In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary to address the plaintiffs remaining contention. Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Curley-Concepcion v. New York City Transit Authority, 276 A.D.2d 463, 714 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 463 (Curley-Concepcion v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related