Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Maritza FEBRES, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. The METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY et al., Defendants–Appellants, “John Doe’ etc., Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered on or about September 8, 2021, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
In this action for personal injuries arising from a fall on a public bus, defendants established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that their bus driver was presented with an emergency situation that was not of his own making when a vehicle abruptly swerved into his lane without signaling, and that he took reasonable action by braking to avoid a collision (see Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 77 N.Y.2d 322, 327, 567 N.Y.S.2d 629, 569 N.E.2d 432 [1991]; Castillo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 188 A.D.3d 484, 484–485, 133 N.Y.S.3d 576 [1st Dept. 2020]; Santana–Lizardo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 186 A.D.3d 1176, 1176, 132 N.Y.S.3d 10 [1st Dept. 2020]).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to submit any evidence tending to show that the bus driver created the emergency or could have avoided a collision by taking a different action other than applying the brakes (see Santana v. Metropolitan Transp. Co., 170 A.D.3d 551, 551–552, 97 N.Y.S.3d 66 [1st Dept. 2019]). Plaintiff's claim that an issue of fact is raised by conflicting testimony over whether the driver braked abruptly or gradually is unavailing. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that the driver was required to take immediate action to avoid striking the vehicle and that braking with sufficient force to prevent an accident was a reasonable response to the emergency (see Jones v. New York City Tr. Auth., 162 A.D.3d 476, 477, 78 N.Y.S.3d 347 [1st Dept. 2018]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 737
Decided: October 10, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)