Plaintiff, who was injured while disembarking from a bus owned and operated by the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) subsequently served a summons and complaint upon defendant Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), which is a corporate and distinct legal entity apart from NYCTA. (Rosas v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 109 A.D.2d 647.) Six years after the incident, MABSTOA moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action inasmuch as it did not own or operate the bus upon which plaintiff was injured and was not, therefore, a party. The IAS court properly granted the motion as no material triable issue of fact existed concerning the ownership and operation of the bus (see, Gilbert Frank Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 966) and there is no basis for invoking the doctrine of reliance or equitable estoppel. (See, Rosas v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., supra; Luka v. New York City Tr. Auth., 100 A.D.2d 323, affd 63 N.Y.2d 667.)
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Ross, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.