Urquhart v. New York City Transit Authority

198 A.D.2d 496, 604 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11131
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 29, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 496 (Urquhart 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
Urquhart v. New York City Transit Authority, 198 A.D.2d 496, 604 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinions

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), entered June 12, 1992, which, upon a jury verdict finding it 90% at fault and the plaintiff 10% at fault in the happening of the accident, and finding that the plaintiff had suffered damages in the amount of $384,000 ($375,000 for pain and suffering and $9,000 for past out-of-pocket expenses), is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $345,600.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the complaint is dismissed.

[497]*497The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case. This was error.

"Proof that a conveyance came to a sudden stop without showing that it was unusually violent or that there was more than the usual and ordinary jerk incident thereto is not sufficient to establish negligence in an action by a passenger for injuries sustained” (17 NY Jur 2d, Carriers, § 471, at 543-544; see also, Kokofsky v City of New York, 297 NY 553). Here, we find that the plaintiff failed to establish that the stop was in fact sudden or unusual for a mid-morning bus on Court Street, a street which the plaintiff admitted was filled with pedestrians as well as moving and double-parked automobiles. Therefore, in the absence of other evidence establishing negligence on the part of the operator of the bus, the Supreme Court should have granted the motion to dismiss. Mangano, P. J., Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Urquhart v. New York City Transit Authority
221 A.D.2d 336 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Urquhart v. New York City Transit Authority
647 N.E.2d 1346 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 A.D.2d 496, 604 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/urquhart-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1993.