MONA BANFIELD, Respondent, v NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al., Appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
828 N.Y.S.2d 534
2006
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, Queens County (Nelson, J.), dated May 26, 2005, as granted that branch of the plaintiff‘s cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff‘s cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when the bus in which she was riding made a sudden, sharp turn, causing her to fall from her seat and, after striking a pole, land on the floor of the bus. In order to establish a prima facie case of negligence against a common carrier for injuries sustained by a passenger as a result of the movement of the vehicle, the plaintiff must establish that the movement consisted of a jerk or lurch that was “unusual and violent” (Urquhart v New York City Tr. Auth., 85 NY2d 828, 830 [1995], quoting Trudell v New York R.T. Corp., 281 NY 82, 85 [1939]; Assante v New York City Tr. Auth., 22 AD3d 698 [2005]). However, “[p]roof 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., supra at 830). Here, in support of her cross motion, the plaintiff submitted her own affidavit and the transcripts of her testimony at the hearing conducted pursuant to