The opinion
Tannis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.
2026 NY Slip Op 30737(U)
February 18, 2026
Supreme Court, Kings County
Docket Number: Index No. 503561/24
Judge: Carolyn E. Wade
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.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.5035612024.KINGS.002.LBLX036_TO.html[03/11/2026 3:45:51 PM]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/26/2026 02:37 PM INDEX NO. 503561/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2026
At the Supreme Court of the State of
New York in the County of Kings,
located at 360 Adams Street, Part ,84,
Brooklyn, New York on the J<i' I-A
day of February, 2026
PRESENT: Honorable Carolyn E. Wade
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
CHARMAINE TANNIS, MICHELLE R. WILLIAMS,
VALERIE HAYES, JESSICA ANDINO, JULIO SERRANO,
R.AINOA SERRANO, CLARA RIVERA, and
JAMES BROWN,
Plaintiffs, Index No. 503561/2024
-against- AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
MBTROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Mot. Seq. No. 7
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
MABSTOA. MTA Bus COMPANY,
RAMEL H. TuCKER, and "JOHN DOE,"
Defendants.
Recitation, as required by CPLR § 2219 (a), of the electronic papers considered In the review
of defendants' summary judgment motion:
Notice of Motion, Affirmations, and Exhibits Annexed................................ 98-106
Opposing Affirmations and Exhibits Annexed ............................................... 111; 121-123: 127-129: 134-135
Reply Affirmations and Exhibits Annexed ....... "........................................ M ... 114-115. 119: 125-126; 132; 133; 136
Proposed Orders." ..••"•••"•••••i• .. •••• ............................................................".......... 137:138:139;140
Order, dated March 12, 2025, dismissing City of New York from
the Clara Rivera Action ........"..........................".... ".............................."......... . Index No. 521380/24. Doc No. 20
Upon the foregoing papers, and after oral argument, the Motion of Defendant, Metropolitan
Transportation Authority ("MTA''), together with Defendants, New York City Transit Authority,
the City of New York, MABSTOA, MTA Bus Company, and Ramel H. Tucker ("non-MTA
Defendants") (collectively referred to "Defendants"), for an Order, pursuant to CPLR §§ 3211 and
3212, granting Summary Judgment and dismissing all claims against them (Mot. Seq. 7), is
decided as follows:
1
[* 1] 1 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/26/2026 02:37 PM INDEX NO. 503561/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2026
BACKGROUND
In May 2023, Plaintiffs were passengers on a bus owned and operated by the non-MTA
Defendants. Plaintiff's allegedly sustained injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident that
occurred at or near the intersection of Pitkin Avenue and Watkins Street in Brooklyn, New York.
As the bus was traveling through the intersection, a grey sedan, which was parked on Pitkin
Avenue, pulled out from its parking spot, entered the bus's lane of travel, and made a U-turn in
front of the bus, thereby causing the bus driver to make a sudden, hard stop. The driver of the grey
sedan (designated as "John Doe" in the caption) fled the scene of the accident.
In February 2024, several Plaintiffs (later joined by other Plaintiffs) commenced this
consolidated action against MTA and the non-MTA Defendants. 1 Defendants joined issue,
asserting (among other affirmative defenses) that: (1) Plaintiffs had no cause of action against
MTA as a matter of law; and (2) Plaintiffs' claims against the non-MTA Defendants were barred
by the emergency doctrine.2
Before any pretrial depositions were held, Defendant~ interposed the instant Motion for
Summary Judgment. Defendants' Motion is supported by an affidavit from the bus driver, as well
as the video data manager, each of whom interpreted the video footage depicting the subject
accident to support the proposition that the bus driver was faced with an emergency. 3 Plaintiffs
objected and, as part of their objections, Plaintiff Valerie Hayes (by way of her eyewitness
1 First Order of Consolidation, dated September 25, 2024; Second Order of Consolidation, dated March 19;
2025 (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 30 and 51, respectively).
2 "Pursuant to the emergency doctrine, a driver faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance, not of
the driver; s own making, that leaves little or no time for reflection or causes that driver to be reasonably so
disturbed as to compel a quick decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, may not be
negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the context of the emergency.'' Welch v. Suffolk
Coach, Inc., 162 A.D.3d 1097 (2nd Dept. 2018)
3 Rahmel H. Tucker's Fact Affidavit, dated June 13, 2025; John Paul Laquindanum's Fact Affidavit, dated
June 26, 2025; Video Footage from Bus Cameras; Video Footage from a Nearby Storefront (NYSCEF Doc
Nos. 10S, 106, 103, and 104, respectively).
2
[* 2] 2 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/26/2026 02:37 PM INDEX NO. 503561/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2026
affidavit)4 recited, in detail, her reasons why the bus driver failed to exercise reasonable care to
avoid the accident.5 On November 5, 2025, the Court heard oral argument on Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment and reserved Decision. After due deliberation having been had, it is
decided as follows:
DISCUSSION
Defendant MTA
"It 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." Fiero v. City of New York, 190 A.D.3d 822 (2nd Dept.
2021). MTA "neither owns nor operates any buses." Towbin v. City ofNew York, 309 A.D.2d 505
(1 st Dept 2003). The bus involved in the subject accident was owned and operated by Defendant
MTA Bus Company, and "the MTA is not vicariously liable for the torts of its subsidiaries such
as [Defendant] MTA Bus Company." Brunson v. City ofNew York, 150 A.D.3d 1189 (2nd Dept
2017). Accordingly, dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims against MTA is warranted, pursuant to
CPLR § 3211 (a) (7). Chen v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 239 AD3d 589 (2nd Dept 2025).
Non-MTA Defendants
CPLR § 3212 (f) provides, in relevant part, that a Court may deny a Motion for Summary
Judgment "[s]hould it appear from affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion that facts
essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated." "It is well established that
where facts essential to justify opposition to a motion for summary judgment are exclusively
within the knowledge and control of the movant, summary judgment may be denied." Baron v.
4 Valerie Hayes's Affidavit, dated October 23, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc No. 129).
s For entitlement to Summwy Judgment on the emergency doctrine, movants must "eliminate triable issues
of fact as to whether [the] bus driver exercised reasonable care to avoid the accident, whether his [or her]
actions contributed to or caused the emergency, and whether his [or her] negligence was a proximate cause
of the accident" (see Greene v MTA Bus Co., 219 AD3d 1411, 1412 [2d Dept 2023]).
3
[* 3] 3 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/26/2026 02:37 PM INDEX NO. 503561/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2026
Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 143 A.D.2d 792 (2nd Dept 1988). This is especially so where, as
here, Plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to depose the bus driver to ascertain "whether he had
met his duty of care, a subject within his exclusive knowledge." Paulino v. Chaver-Jimenez, 238
A.D.3d 610 (1 st Dept 2025). Under the circumstances of this consolidated case, where no pretrial
depositions have been taken, the branch of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in favor
of the non-MTA Defendants must be DENIED as premature, without prejudice, providing
Defendant's the opportunity to renew upon the completion of discovery. Gruenfeld v. City ofNew
Rochelle, 72 A.D.3d 1025 (2nd Dept. 2010); Elliotv. County ofNassau, 53 A.D.3d 561 (2nd Dept.
2008). 6
The Court has considered the parties' remaining contentions and found them either moot
or unavailing in light of its determination. All relief not expressly granted herein is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, and after oral argument, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Defendants' Motion (Mot. Seq. No. 7) is GRANTED SOLELY TO
THE EXTENT that Plaintiffs' claims against MTA are dismissed, pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a)
(7). The remainder of the Motion is DENIED AS PREMATURE, PURSUANT TO CPLR §
3212 (t), WITHOUT PREJUDICE, TO RENEW FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF
DISCOVERY; and it is further
ORDERED that the action is severed and continued against the non-MTA Defendants,
with the amended caption to read as follows:
6 See alsoChmelovsky v. Country Club Homes, Inc., 106 A.D.3d 684 (2nd Dept. 2013); Gregorian v. New
YorkLifelns. Co., 90A.D.3d 837 (2nd Dept. 2011); Gardnerv. Cason, Inc., 82A.D.3d 930 (2nd Dept. 2011);
Evangelista v. Kambanls, 14 A.D.3d 1278 (2nd Dept. 2010).
4
[* 4] 4 of 5
INDEX NO. 503561/2024
FILED:
' , .
KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/26/2026 02:37 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 156 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2026
CHARMANE TANNIS, MICHELLER WILLIAMS,
VALERIE HAYES, JESSICA ANDINO, JULIO SERANO,
RAINOA SERRANO, CLARA RrVERA, and
JAMES BROWN,
Plaintiffs, Index No. 503561/24
-against-
NBW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
MABSTOA, MTA Bus COMPANY,
RAMEL H. TuCKER, and "JOHN DoE,n
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------X
; and it is further
ORDERED that Sacco & Fillas, LLP (as one of Plaintiffs' counsel), is directed to
electronically serve a copy ofthis Decision and Order with Notice of Entry on Defendants' counsel
and to electronically file an Affidavit of said service with the Kings County Clerk.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
ENTER:
-
c::>
ci;:t
"""l
M"I
~·
·z
C)
(I)
c::o ""it(")
_o
er re:::
N
z
l""f-t
)> 0-(
C")
,-
~ l"l1
::,0
w A
Q)
s
[* 5] 5 of 5