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.
Resham Singh, plaintiff-respondent, v. MTA Bus Company, et al., appellants, David I. Cho, defendant- respondent.
Argued—September 27, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants MTA Bus Company and Ernie Lamboy appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cullen, J.), entered August 25, 2010, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendants MTA Bus Company and Ernie Lamboy (hereinafter together the appellants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, as the appellants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The appellants failed to establish that they were free from negligence as a matter of law (see Pollack v. Margolin, 84 AD3d 1341, 1342; Lopez v. Reyes–Flores, 52 AD3d 785, 786; Borukhow v. Cuff, 48 AD3d 726, 727). Moreover, “the appellants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether [Lamboy] was faced with an emergency situation not of his own making and, if so, whether his actions were reasonable and prudent in that context” (Crawford–Dunk v. MV Transp., Inc., 83 AD3d 764, 765; see Khan v. Canfora, 60 AD3d 635, 636; Takle v. New York City Tr. Auth., 14 AD3d 608).
RIVERA, J.P., FLORIO, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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: 2010–09675 (Index No. 5583 /08)
Decided: October 18, 2011
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)