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.
John CORCORAN, Respondent, v. BABYLON TRANSIT, INC., et al., Appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated January 11, 2002, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff alleges that he was injured on October 23, 1999, while riding on a bus owned by the defendant Babylon Transit, Inc., and driven by the defendant Lamont Wilson. His injury allegedly occurred on the Staten Island Expressway when the bus hit something in the road causing it to lift one to two feet off the ground. The plaintiff alleges that he was walking from the bathroom back to his seat at the time of the incident, that he was violently thrown upward into the ceiling of the bus, and that he landed hard on his spine causing a compression fracture.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff's estimate of the speed of the bus at the time of the injury, contained in his deposition testimony and in his affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion, constituted proof sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the bus was traveling at an excessive rate of speed (see Shpritzman v. Strong, 248 A.D.2d 524, 670 N.Y.S.2d 50; Larsen v. Vigliarolo Bros., 77 A.D.2d 562, 429 N.Y.S.2d 273; Lo Faso v. Jamaica Buses, 63 A.D.2d 998, 406 N.Y.S.2d 131). Thus, after the defendants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff carried his burden of producing evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).
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.
Decided: June 10, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)