Opinion
2013-06078
12-03-2014
Mary DOWDY, appellant, v. MTA–LONG ISLAND BUS, respondent, et al., defendant.
The Gucciardo Law Firm PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Shayne, Dachs, Sauer & Dachs, LLP [Jonathan A. Dachs ], of counsel), for appellant. Zaklukiewicz, Puzo & Morrissey, LLP, Islip Terrace, N.Y. (Eric Z. Leiter of counsel), for respondent.
The Gucciardo Law Firm PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Shayne, Dachs, Sauer & Dachs, LLP [Jonathan A. Dachs ], of counsel), for appellant.
Zaklukiewicz, Puzo & Morrissey, LLP, Islip Terrace, N.Y. (Eric Z. Leiter of counsel), for respondent.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., JEFFREY A. COHEN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), dated February 19, 2013, which granted the motion of the defendant MTA–Long Island Bus for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries shortly after she boarded a bus owned and operated by the defendant MTA–Long Island Bus, when it suddenly accelerated, causing her to fall.
To establish a prima facie case of negligence against a common carrier for injuries sustained by a passenger as a result of the movement of the vehicle, the plaintiff must establish that the movement consisted of a jerk or lurch that was “ ‘unusual and violent’ ” (Urquhart v. New York City Tr. Auth., 85 N.Y.2d 828, 830, 623 N.Y.S.2d 838, 647 N.E.2d 1346, quoting Trudell v. New York R.T. Corp., 281 N.Y. 82, 85, 22 N.E.2d 244 ; see MacDonald v. New York City Tr. Auth., 106 A.D.3d 1057, 966 N.Y.S.2d 477 ; Rayford v. County of Westchester, 59 A.D.3d 508, 509, 873 N.Y.S.2d 187 ; Golub v. New York City Tr. Auth., 40 A.D.3d 581, 582, 836 N.Y.S.2d 197 ). Here, MTA–Long Island Bus established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting a transcript of the plaintiff's deposition testimony, which demonstrated that the movement of the bus was not “unusual or violent” or of a “different class than the jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel” (Urquhart v. New York City Tr. Auth., 85 N.Y.2d at 830, 623 N.Y.S.2d 838, 647 N.E.2d 1346 ; see MacDonald v. New York City Tr. Auth., 106 A.D.3d at 1058, 966 N.Y.S.2d 477 ; Burke v. MTA Bus Co., 95 A.D.3d 813, 942 N.Y.S.2d 817 ; Rayford v. County of Westchester, 59 A.D.3d at 509, 873 N.Y.S.2d 187 ; Golub v. New York City Tr. Auth., 40 A.D.3d at 582, 836 N.Y.S.2d 197 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of MTA–Long Island Bus for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.