Villar v MTA Bus Co.
2011 NY Slip Op 00216 [80 AD3d 602]
January 11, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 9, 2011


Carmen R. Villar, Appellant,
v
MTA Bus Company et al.,Respondents.

[*1]Latos Latos & Di Pippo, P.C., Astoria, N.Y. (Peter Latos and Andrew Latos of counsel), forappellant.

Marulli, Lindenbaum, Edelman & Tomaszewski, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard O. Mannarino ofcounsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), entered March 26, 2010, which granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While the plaintiff was a passenger on an M15 express bus in Queens, she allegedly sustainedinjuries when she was thrown into the seat in front of her after the bus stopped suddenly to avoid acollision with a car which had cut into its lane. The bus was owned by the defendant MTA BusCompany and operated by the defendant Tze M. Cheng.

Pursuant to the emergency doctrine, "when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpectedcircumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actorto be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternativecourses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent inthe emergency context" (Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327 [1991]; see Evans v Bosl, 75 AD3d 491, 492[2010]; Miloscia v New York City Bd. ofEduc., 70 AD3d 904, 905 [2010]).

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bysubmitting evidence demonstrating that Tze M. Cheng was confronted with a sudden and unexpectedcircumstance not of his own making and that, under the circumstances, his actions were reasonable andprudent in response to the emergency (seeBello v Transit Auth. of N.Y. City, 12 AD3d 58, 60-61 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintifffailed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Evans v Bosl, 75 AD3d at 492; Miloscia v NewYork City Bd. of Educ., 70 AD3d at 905). Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.