Hines v. New York City Transit Authority

139 A.D.3d 534, 30 N.Y.S.3d 552
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 19, 2016
Docket1187 159194/12
StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 534 (Hines 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
Hines v. New York City Transit Authority, 139 A.D.3d 534, 30 N.Y.S.3d 552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered on or about October 20, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendants Academy Express LLC (Academy) and Damon Bassano for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff, while a passenger on a bus owned by defendant Transit Authority, was injured when that bus collided with another bus owned by Academy, and driven by Bassano. The rear right side of the Transit Authority bus collided with the front driver’s corner of the Academy bus when the Transit Authority bus changed lanes from the left to the right lane, in which the Academy bus was proceeding.

Bassano testified, without contradiction, that there was approximately one second, from when he first saw the Transit Authority bus passing him, until impact. Under such circumstances, he had no time to anticipate the Transit Authority bus cutting him off, and his actions were not negligent as a matter of law, under such emergency conditions (see Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327 [1991]; Ward v Cox, 38 AD3d 313 [1st Dept 2007]). “[C]ourts have repeatedly rejected, as a basis for imposing liability, speculation concerning the possible accident-avoidance measures of a defendant faced with an emergency” (Caban v Vega, 226 AD2d 109, 111 [1st Dept 1996]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

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

Related

Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority
569 N.E.2d 432 (New York Court of Appeals, 1991)
Caban v. Vega
226 A.D.2d 109 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 A.D.3d 534, 30 N.Y.S.3d 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2016.