| Tarnavska v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. OperatingAuth. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03830 [106 AD3d 1079] |
| May 29, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Olena Tarnavska, Appellant, v Manhattan andBronx Surface Transit Operating Authority et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1]
Steve S. Efron, New York, N.Y. (Renee L. Cyr of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated October 3, 2011, whichgranted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she was thrown to the floor after thebus in which she was riding stopped short to avoid a collision with a vehicle that, withoutsignaling, had suddenly cut in front of it to make a left turn.
The "emergency doctrine holds that those faced with a sudden and unexpectedcircumstance, not of their own making, that leaves them with little or no time forreflection or reasonably causes them to be so disturbed that they are compelled to make aquick decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, may not be negligent iftheir actions are reasonable and prudent in the context of the emergency" (Bello v Transit Auth. of N.Y.City, 12 AD3d 58, 60 [2004]; see Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77NY2d 322, 327 [1991]; Parastatidis v Holbrook Rental Ctr., Inc., 95 AD3d 975[2012]; Davis v MetropolitanTr. Auth., 92 AD3d 825 [2012]; Williams v City of New York, 88 AD3d 989 [2011]; Villar v MTA Bus Co., 80AD3d 602 [2011]; Milosciav New York City Bd. of Educ., 70 AD3d 904, 905 [2010]).
Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matterof law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the defendant bus driver wasconfronted with a sudden and unexpected circumstance not of her own making and that,under the circumstances, her actions were reasonable and prudent in response to theemergency (see Villar v MTABus Co., 80 AD3d 602 [2011]; Miloscia v New York City Bd. of Educ., 70 AD3d 904[2010]). In opposition, the plaintiff's speculative and conclusory assertions failed to raisea triable issue of fact (see Miloscia v New York City Bd. of Educ., 70 AD3d at905).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for [*2]summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.P.,Hall, Lott and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.