The opinion
Juchao Zhang v New York City Tr. Auth.
2025 NY Slip Op 31585(U)
May 2, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 155574/2024
Judge: Richard Tsai
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
INDEX NO. 155574/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. RICHARD TSAI PART 21
Justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 155574/2024
JUCHAO ZHANG,
Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 08/23/2024
-v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 001
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, MTA
DECISION + ORDER ON
BUS COMPANY, and JORGE D. LOPEZ,
MOTION
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 001) 10-18, 20-24
were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY .
Upon the foregoing documents, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for partial
summary judgment as to liability against defendants is GRANTED TO THE EXTENT
THAT plaintiff is granted summary judgment in his favor as to liability against
defendants New York City Transit Authority and Jorge D. Lopez, who are jointly and
severally liable; and it is further
ORDERED that the affirmative defenses of plaintiff’s culpable conduct and the
emergency doctrine in defendants’ answer are stricken; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is otherwise denied; and it is further
In this action involving a motor vehicle collision, plaintiff stated the following at his
statutory hearing: the incident occurred on September 28, 2023 (plaintiff’s statutory
hearing [NYSCEF Doc. No. 16] at 9, lines 21-24). According to plaintiff, he was stopped
at red traffic lights on 7th Avenue for three seconds prior to the incident (id. at 28 lines 7-
9; at 30 lines 10-13; at 36 line 22 through 37 line 4). When asked to describe his stop,
plaintiff said it was “[s]lowly, gradually” (id. at 37 line 25 through 38 line 5). Plaintiff
stated that at the time of the incident he was in his own lane (id. at 30 line 22 through 31
line 11; at 32 lines 16-21).
According to plaintiff, the incident involved a bus and that the “front” part of the
bus caused damage to “[t]he rear part [of plaintiff’s vehicle] including the bumper,
including the rear part passenger side, the area above the wheel, the four glasses,
lights, braking lighting, the trunk” (id. at 34 lines 15-17; at 38 line 19 through 39 line 7).
155574/2024 ZHANG, JUCHAO vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL Page 1 of 4
Motion No. 001
1 of 4
[* 1]
INDEX NO. 155574/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2025
Plaintiff stated that the impact was “heavy” and caused his shoulder and left side of his
body to hit the window and door (id. at 56 line 21 through 57 line 9).
In the answer of defendants New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA),
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, MTA Bus Company and Jorge D Lopez (Transit
Defendants), defendant NYCTA admitted it owned a bus bearing license plate number
BE7940, and that defendant Jorge D Lopez, an employee of non-party Manhattan and
Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, was operating the bus within the scope of
his employment and with the permission of defendant NYCTA (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 9
[Transit Defendants answer] ¶ 7).
Plaintiff has met the prima facie burden of establishing Lopez’s negligence and
that Lopez’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing his injuries.
“It is well settled that a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping
vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the
driver of the rear vehicle and imposes a duty on the part of the operator of
the moving vehicle to come forward with an adequate nonnegligent
explanation for the collision” (Madera v Charles Hukrston Truck, Inc., 235
AD3d 452 [1st Dept 2025] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
As the NYCTA is the admitted owner of the vehicle operated by Lopez with the
NYCTA’s permission, plaintiff met his prima facie burden that the NYCTA is vicariously
liable for Lopez’s negligence under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (see Murdza v
Zimmerman, 99 NY2d 375, 379 [2003]).
In opposition, Transit Defendants argue plaintiff’s motion is premature because
the “only discovery thus far has been the pre-Complaint statutory hearing of the plaintiff
conducted on February 2, 2024. No documents have yet been exchanged by any party.
No witnesses on behalf of the Transit defendants have been deposed, including named
bus operator, JORGE LOPEZ” (affirmation of defendants’ counsel in opposition
[NYSCEF Doc. No. 20] ¶ 5).
Contrary to defendants’ arguments, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is
not premature, as any explanation for why Lopez rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle was
already present within Lopez’s own personal knowledge (see Stephenson v New York
City Tr. Auth., 226 AD3d 546 [1st Dept 2024]; Ahmad v Behal, 221 AD3d 558, 559 [1st
Dept 2023]). Defendants did not submit any affidavit from Lopez in its opposition to this
motion. Instead, Transit Defendants attempt to rely on statements allegedly made by
Lopez to an NYCTA supervisor who allegedly attended the scene of the incident and
completed an unsworn Supervisor Accident/Incident Investigation Report. These
statements, as plaintiff correctly claims in their reply, are hearsay and Transit
Defendants made no argument in their affirmation in opposition that they fall within any
exception to the hearsay rule (affirmation in reply [NYSCEF Doc. No. 22] ¶9).
“[H]earsay evidence may be considered to defeat a motion for summary judgment as
155574/2024 ZHANG, JUCHAO vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL Page 2 of 4
Motion No. 001
2 of 4
[* 2]
INDEX NO. 155574/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2025
long as it is not the only evidence submitted in opposition (O'Halloran v City of New
York, 78 AD3d 536, 537 [1st Dept 2010]).
In any event, Lopez’s hearsay statements fail to rebut the presumption of
negligence. The accident report states, in relevant part:
(see defendant’s Exhibit A in opposition, Supervisor’s Accident/Investigation report
[NYSCEF Doc. No. 21]).
Lopez’s hearsay statement that plaintiff's vehicle “stopped short,” standing alone,
is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence on the part of Lopez (Deliz v Davis,
236 AD3d 587 [1st Dept 2025]). “[S]tops that are foreseeable under prevailing traffic
conditions must be anticipated by the driver who follows, who is under a duty to
maintain a safe distance between his vehicle and the lead vehicle” (id. quoting Lambert
v Bonilla, 201 AD3d 502, 503 [1st Dept. 2022]).
Thus, plaintiff is granted summary judgment in his favor as to liability against the
NYCTA and Lopez. To be clear, the determination of their fault as a matter of law on
this motion does not include the issue of whether plaintiff suffered a serious injury within
the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), “which is a threshold matter separate from
the issue of fault” (Reid v Brown, 308 AD2d 331, 332 [1st Dept 2003]).
Defendants’ remaining arguments are unavailing.
Plaintiff is also granted summary judgment dismissing the affirmative defenses of
plaintiff’s culpable conduct and the emergency doctrine. Plaintiff claims his vehicle
came to a gradual stop at a red light and was stopped for three seconds prior to the
incident. “[T]he emergency doctrine typically is inapplicable to routine rear-end traffic
accidents” (Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 271 [1st Dept 1999]).
Summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor as to liability against defendants
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the MTA Bus Company is denied.
Plaintiff did not submit any evidence either that the MTA or MTA Bus Company owns
the bus at issue, or that Lopez was an employee of the MTA or MTA Bus Company.1
1
Although not raised by defendants, the court notes that “[i]t is well settled, as a matter of law,
that the functions of the MTA with respect to public transportation are limited to financing and
planning, and do not include the operation, maintenance, and control of any facility” (Delacruz v
Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 45 AD3d 482, 483 [1st Dept 2007]; see also Archer v New York City
Tr. Auth., 187 AD3d 564 [1st Dept 2020]).
155574/2024 ZHANG, JUCHAO vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL Page 3 of 4
Motion No. 001
3 of 4
[* 3]
INDEX NO. 155574/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2025
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
5/2/2025
DATE RICHARD TSAI, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
155574/2024 ZHANG, JUCHAO vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL Page 4 of 4
Motion No. 001
4 of 4
[* 4]