Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court properly charged the jury on the emergency doctrine ( see PJI 2:14; Ferrer v. Harris, 55 NY2d 285; Rosario v. Morias, 8 AD3d 108; Coleman v. Pizza Hut of Am., 235 AD2d 451; Waugh v. Johns, 206 AD2d 525). Where some reasonable view of the evidence establishes that an actor was confronted by a sudden and unforseen occurrence not of his or her own making, then the reasonableness of the conduct in the face of the emergency is for the jury ( see Caristo v. Sanzone, 96 NY2d 172, 175; Kuci v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 88 NY2d 923, 924; Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327; Ferrer v. Harris, supra). Here, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, was sufficient to establish that the defendant was faced with a sudden and unforeseen occurrence not of his own making ( see Frank v. Lufsey, 243 AD2d 538).