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.
Cuman Cropper, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. M.D. Stewart, et al., Defendants, New York Cit Transit Authority, Defendant–Appellant, Paper Cab Corporation, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., New York (Brian J. Shoot of counsel), for Cuman Cropper, respondent.
Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, for Paper Cab Corporation and Said N. Faoui, respondents.
_
‘s injuries, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated and the complaint dismissed as against NYCTA. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
A defendant is not liable where he or she is faced with a sudden and unforeseen occurrence that was not of his own making (see Mendez v. City of New York, 110 AD3d 421 [1st Dept 2013] ). Here, defendant cab driver opened his driver's side door, causing plaintiff to be thrown from his bicycle into the path of an oncoming bus. Testimony concerning the length of time that elapsed from plaintiff being thrown from his bike and the impact with the bus consistently stated that it was only an instant or a second, an insufficient length of time to constitute actionable negligence (see Mendez at 422; see also Splain v. New York City Tr. Auth., 180 A.D.2d 454 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 759 [1992] ). The only evidence that could have served as the basis for the jury's verdict against NYCTA was erroneously admitted, since it was based in whole or in part upon NYCTA's internal rules and standards which hold NYCTA to a higher standard of care than the common law (see Williams v. New York City Tr. Auth, 108 AD3d 403, 404 [1st Dept 2013] ).
In light of the foregoing, we need not consider appellant's remaining contentions.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 1235 6
Decided: May 01, 2014
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)