Discuss the concept of summary judgment.
Resources
Consider the following example scenario involving a pretrial motion for a
summary judgment.
Samantha’s Shake Shack
Samantha is the owner of a milkshake business located in a mall. She wanted to
tap into the smoothie craze, so she entered a financing agreement to purchase
a smoothie machine from Smoothie Makerz, Inc. The company had her sign a
purchase contract for the machine. The contract contained a payment schedule
for Samantha to pay the company with interest for the machine.
She operated the machine on a cart in the middle of the mall. The machine
operated as expected, and smoothie sales were strong during the summer months.
The only thing Samantha did not like about the machine was the upkeep. Its
maintenance required disassembly and cleaning every two weeks. Because she was
not motivated to do the necessary cleaning, Samantha decided to close down the
smoothie machine at the end of the summer. She then stopped making monthly
payments on the machine because she no longer had the funds available.
Marri v New York City Tr. Auth.
Annotate this Case
Marri v New York City Tr. Auth. 2013 NY Slip Op 03065 Decided on May 1, 2013
Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law
Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected
and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on May 1, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
PLUMMER E. LOTT
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
2012-05317
(Index No. 16119/10)
[*1]Vipulamma Marri, appellant,
v
New York City Transit Authority, respondent.
Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for
appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals
from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), dated April
12, 2012, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing
the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant’s bus. She alleged that, as she
was walking to a seat, the bus stopped short and she fell to the floor of the
bus. After the plaintiff commenced this personal injury action against the
defendant, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In support of its motion, the defendant relied upon the emergency doctrine and
submitted the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and the bus driver. The
bus driver testified that, while his bus was in the center lane of a roadway
with three lanes in each direction, a sedan, without signaling, “popped out”
of the right lane, which had become a lane for right turns only, and cut into
the center lane, causing him to apply his brake in a “heavy” manner. The bus
driver testified that his bus was proceeding at a rate of less than 30 miles
per hour during the one-minute period prior to the accident. The Supreme Court
granted the motion.
Through the emergency doctrine, the law recognizes ” that those faced with a
sudden and unexpected circumstance, not of their own making, that leaves them
with little or no time for reflection or reasonably causes them to be so
disturbed that they are compelled to make a quick decision without weighing
alternative courses of conduct, may not be negligent if their actions are
reasonable and prudent in the context of the emergency’ (Bello v Transit Auth.
of N.Y. City, 12 AD3d 58, 60; see Parastatidis v Holbrook Rental Ctr., Inc.,
95 AD3d 975, 976)” (Lowhar-Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 97 AD3d 728,
729).
“Although the existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of the response
to it generally present issues of fact for purposes of application of the
emergency doctrine (see Lonergan v Almo, 74 AD3d 902,903), those issues may in
appropriate circumstances be determined as a matter of law” (Davis v
Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 92 AD3d 825, 826).
Here, as in Miloscia v New York City Bd. of Educ. (70 AD3d 904, 905), the
defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of
law by demonstrating that the [*2]actions of the bus driver in braking
abruptly to avoid a collision with a car that had suddenly pulled out in front
of him were reasonably prudent in an emergency situation not of his own making
(see Villar v MTA Bus Co., 80 AD3d 602; Gonzalez v New York City Tr. Auth., 78
AD3d 1120). In opposition, the plaintiff’s speculative and conclusory
assertions did not raise a triable issue of fact (see Gonzalez v New York City
Tr. Auth., 78 AD3d at 1121; see Lyons v Rumpler, 254 AD2d 261). Accordingly,
the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff’s remaining contention, that the defendant should have been
precluded from raising the emergency doctrine because it was not pleaded as an
affirmative defense, is not properly before this Court (see Miloscia v New
York City Bd. of Educ., 70 AD3d at 905).
MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, LOTT and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Smoothie Makerz then filed a complaint initiating a lawsuit against Samantha
for non-payment. During her deposition with the attorney of Smoothie Makerz,
Inc., Samantha stated that she stopped making payments because she was “flat
broke.” She acknowledged that she had a legal obligation to make payments but
stated she would not and could not make the payments.
How should Smoothie Makerz, Inc., proceed with their lawsuit? Are there any
motions Smoothie Makerz should consider filing?
To expedite the case, Smoothie Makerz, Inc., should file a motion for summary
judgment. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Samantha signed a
financing agreement to purchase the smoothie machine, which she did not deny.
She failed to make payments on the smoothie machine per the contract. Samantha
presented no legally defensible reason for not making payments on the smoothie
machine. Smoothie Makers, Inc., can argue that, based on Samantha’s deposition
testimony, the judge should rule in its favor.
Instructions
In your textbook, Business Law, read Chapter 3, “Judicial, Alternative, and
E-Dispute Resolution.”
Read the case summary Marri v. New York City Transit Authority.
Navigate to the threaded discussion and respond to the following:
In your own words, explain the summary judgment concept.
Summarize the relevant facts of Marri v. New York City Transit Authority.
Explain why you agree or disagree with the legal ruling in Marri v. New York
City Transit Authority.
Your initial post is due by the end of the fourth day of the workshop.
Read and respond to at least two of your classmates’ postings, as well as all
follow-up instructor questions directed to you, by the end of the workshop.
Your postings also should:
Be well developed by providing clear answers with evidence of critical
thinking.
Add greater depth to the discussion by introducing new ideas.
Provide clarification to classmates’ questions and insight into the
discussion.
Be posted on three different days during the workshop.
