| Gioulis v MTA Bus Co. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02632 [94 AD3d 811] |
| April 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Mary Gioulis, Appellant, v MTA Bus Company et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Sullivan & Brill, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Adam A. Khalil and Joseph F. Sullivan of counsel),for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), dated October 3, 2011, which granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On January 6, 2009, the plaintiff, who was then 84 years old, allegedly was injured when shefell in a bus owned and operated by the defendants. She commenced this action alleging that thedefendants were negligent in causing her to fall because the bus operator stopped the bus in anunusual and violent manner. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint, submitting, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and thebus operator. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that she was sitting in the front seat oppositethe driver when she pressed the buzzer for her stop, and, as the bus was slowing down toapproach her stop, she got up, holding onto a metal pole. She further testified that the driverapplied the brake "fast" and "stopped short," causing her to fall and slide to the front of the busunder the windshield, sustaining injuries. The bus operator testified that, although he did notrecall his rate of speed, it had been raining and the road conditions did not allow travel at a highrate of speed. The bus driver indicated that he was already "halfway" into the area designated forthe bus stop when the buzzer sounded. He applied the brake "a little bit more than light"; the stopwas not abrupt or violent and there was "nothing unusual" about it. The Supreme Court grantedthe defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.
"To establish a prima facie case of negligence against a common carrier for injuries sustainedby a passenger as a result of the movement of the vehicle, the plaintiff must establish that themovement consisted of a jerk or lurch that was unusual or violent" (Rayford v County of Westchester, 59AD3d 508, 508-509 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Urquhart v NewYork City Tr. Auth., 85 NY2d 828, 829-830 [1995]; Black v County of Dutchess, 87 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2011]; Golub v New York City Tr. Auth., 40AD3d 581, 582 [2007]). "Proof that the stop was unusual or violent must consist of morethan a mere characterization of the stop in those terms by the plaintiff" (Urquhart [*2]v New York City Tr. Auth., 85 NY2d at 830). There must be"objective evidence of the force of the stop sufficient to establish an inference that the stop wasextraordinary and violent, of a different class than the jerks and jolts commonly experienced incity bus travel and, therefore, attributable to the negligence of defendant" (id. at 830;see Golub v New York City Tr. Auth., 40 AD3d at 582; Banfield v New York City Tr. Auth.,36 AD3d 732, 732-733 [2007]).
Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find that thedefendants established, prima facie, that the incident described was not "unusual and violent" andof a "different class than the jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel"(Urquhart v New York City Tr. Auth., 85 NY2d at 830 [internal quotation marksomitted]; see Guadalupe v New YorkCity Tr. Auth., 91 AD3d 716 [2012]; Golub v New York City Tr. Auth., 40AD3d at 582; Banfield v New York City Tr. Auth., 36 AD3d at 732-733). In opposition,the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properlygranted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Dillon, J.P.,Angiolillo, Belen and Cohen, JJ., concur.