Latos Latos & Associates, P.C., Astoria, N.Y. (Andrew Latos of counsel), for appellant.
Brand, Glick & Brand, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Kenneth Finkelstein of counsel), for respondents.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), entered January 22, 2015, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“To establish a prima facie case of negligence against a common carrier for injuries sustained by a passenger when the vehicle comes to a halt, the plaintiff must establish that the stop caused a jerk or lurch that was unusual and violent. Proof that the stop was unusual or violent must consist of more than a mere characterization of the stop in those terms by the plaintiff” (Urquhart v. New York City Tr. Auth., 85 N.Y.2d 828, 829–830, 623 N.Y.S.2d 838, 647 N.E.2d 1346 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see
Gioulis v. MTA Bus Co., 94 A.D.3d 811, 812, 941 N.Y.S.2d 689; Guadalupe v. New York City Tr. Auth., 91 A.D.3d 716, 717, 936 N.Y.S.2d 314; Black v. County of Dutchess, 87 A.D.3d 1097, 1098, 930 N.Y.S.2d 64; Golub v. New York City Tr. Auth., 40 A.D.3d 581, 582, 836 N.Y.S.2d 197). There must be “objective evidence of the force of the stop sufficient to establish an inference that the stop was extraordinary and violent, of a different class than the jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel and, therefore, attributable to the negligence of defendant” (Urquhart v. New York City Tr. Auth., 85 N.Y.2d at 830, 623 N.Y.S.2d 838, 647 N.E.2d 1346; see Alandette v. New York City Tr. Auth., 127 A.D.3d 896, 897, 8 N.Y.S.3d 347; Burke v. MTA Bus Co., 95 A.D.3d 813, 942 N.Y.S.2d 817; Banfield v. New York City Tr. Auth., 36 A.D.3d 732, 732–733, 828 N.Y.S.2d 534).
Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia,
the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and her daughter, a fellow passenger, which demonstrated that the stop of the bus was not unusual or violent or of a different class than the jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel (
see
Urquhart v. New York City Tr. Auth., 85 N.Y.2d at 830,
623 N.Y.S.2d 838,
647 N.E.2d 1346;
Burke v. MTA Bus Co., 95 A.D.3d 813,
942 N.Y.S.2d 817;
Guadalupe v. New York City Tr. Auth., 91 A.D.3d at 717,
936 N.Y.S.2d 314;
Rayford v. County of Westchester, 59 A.D.3d 508, 509,
873 N.Y.S.2d 187;
Golub v. New York City Tr. Auth., 40 A.D.3d at 582,
836 N.Y.S.2d 197;
Banfield v. New York City Tr. Auth., 36 A.D.3d at 732–733,
828 N.Y.S.2d 534). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
ENG, P.J., MASTRO, COHEN and MILLER, JJ., concur.