Ortiz v. Globe Ground North America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. Globe Ground North America

36 A.D.3d 872, 830 N.Y.S.2d 209

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 A.D.3d 872 (Ortiz v. Globe Ground North America) 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

Ortiz v. Globe Ground North America, 36 A.D.3d 872, 830 N.Y.S.2d 209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated August 19, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when the bus on which she was a passenger came to a sudden stop, causing her to fall to the ground. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the defendant bus driver, in stopping suddenly, was responding to an emergency situation for which the defendants cannot be held liable (see e.g., Caristo v Sanzone, 96 NY2d 172 [2001]). The Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.

On this record, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062 [1993]), as the evidence they tendered leaves unresolved material issues of fact regarding the applicability of the emergency doctrine (see Tossas v Ponce, 24 AD3d 224 [2005]; McGraw v Glowacki, 303 AD2d 968, 969 [2003]; Morgan v Ski Roundtop 290 AD2d 618, 619-620 [2002]; cf. Roviello v Schoolman Transp. Sys., Inc., 10 AÍD3d 356 [2004]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Skelos and Fisher, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated August 19, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when the bus on which she was a passenger came to a sudden stop, causing her to fall to the ground. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the defendant bus driver, in stopping suddenly, was responding to an emergency situation for which the defendants cannot be held liable (see e.g., Caristo v Sanzone, 96 NY2d 172 [2001]). The Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.

On this record, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062 [1993]), as the evidence they tendered leaves unresolved material issues of fact regarding the applicability of the emergency doctrine (see Tossas v Ponce, 24 AD3d 224 [2005]; McGraw v Glowacki, 303 AD2d 968, 969 [2003]; Morgan v Ski Roundtop 290 AD2d 618, 619-620 [2002]; cf. Roviello v Schoolman Transp. Sys., Inc., 10 AÍD3d 356 [2004]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Skelos and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.3d 872, 830 N.Y.S.2d 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-globe-ground-north-america-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack