Upon the foregoing papers, the motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint is dismissed as against defendants New York City Transit Authority and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (collectively, hereinafter "NYCTA").

This is an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Minerva Garcia (hereinafter "plaintiff"), when she alighted from the X30 bus operated by defendant NYCTA, which had stopped at or near a designated bus stop located at 1600 Forest Avenue, Staten Island, New York ^[FN1] on December 29, 2010 at approximately 8:00 p.m. Upon exiting the bus, plaintiff was caused [*2]to slip and fall on snow and ice on the sidewalk at the subject location. It is alleged that, inter alia, defendant NYCTA breached its duty to ensure the safe discharge of a passenger at a designated bus stop, and that the driver's decision to stop the bus at an unsafe area of the sidewalk, i.e., in the purported presence of snow, ice and slush, constituted negligence.

At her deposition, plaintiff testified that at the time of the accident, she was a passenger on the X30 bus on her way home from work (see July 15, 2013 EBT of Minerva Garcia, pp 5-6). It was dark, but it was not snowing (id. at 7, 12). She rang the bell at her stop and walked towards the front of the bus to exit (id. at 10-11). As she was walking up the aisle of the bus, plaintiff did not see any mounds of snow at the place where the bus had stopped (id. at 12, 91). Nevertheless, upon exiting the bus and stepping onto the sidewalk, she observed mounds of snow, slush and ice (id. at 17-19, 22), as well as "a path through the... mounds" where the bus had discharged her. However, the path was "very slim" and she "could barely see it" (id. at 22-24, 79). Plaintiff further testified that her right foot then started to slip as it encountered the snow, which caused plaintiff to fall down (id. at 24-25). Her knee hit the sidewalk first and then the rest of her body hit the sidewalk, including her head (id. at 25-28). After several attempts, plaintiff was able to stand up, by which time the bus had driven away (id. at 33). According to plaintiff, the bus pulled away immediately after she fell (id. at 87). Although plaintiff has generally used the X30 bus to commute to and from work since 2006, she did not recognize the driver (id. at 65-68).

On the morning of the accident date, plaintiff recalled that there "was a lot of snow... compiled to the sides of the sidewalk and [it was] very difficult to walk... [There was a] lot of snow and [it was] slippery" (see September 13, 2013 EBT of Minerva Garcia, p 84). Plaintiff further testified that she did not go to work the two days prior to the accident due to the inclement weather (id. at 93). However, it was not snowing on the day of the accident and she was able to walk "through the mounds of snow" to the bus stop and go into work that morning (id. at 96-97). In the evening, on her way home from work, the bus driver stopped half-a-block sooner than normal, which plaintiff knew as a result of her having taken this particular bus home for the past seven years (id. at 98). According to the witness, the bus could not go any further due to the mounds of snow in the street (id. at 98-99).

On behalf of the NYCTA, Arturo Maisonave testified that he has been employed as a bus operator for the past 14 ½ years (see EBT of Arturo Maisonave, p 6). On the date of plaintiff's accident, the witness was operating the X30 express bus route, and was assigned to make three trips between Staten Island and Manhattan (id. at 6, 11). He recalled that there was a snow storm on December 26, 2010; that the buses were grounded on the 27th and the 28th; and that they returned to service on December 29th (the accident date) (id. at 15-16). With regard to the subject bus stop on Forest Avenue in front of TD Bank, the witness described the level of snow on the roadway as "massive", and that the snow had been pushed against the curb and was piled about three feet high (id. at 19-20). When asked if there was any cut through or passageway from the roadway to the sidewalk within the length of the subject bus stop, the witness identified the "driveway of the TD Bank... [where there was] a pathway at the bus stop... [r]ight where the pole is" (id. at 20-21, 33). The witness did not know who created the pathway nor was he aware of the snow removal procedures employed at bus stops (id. at 21, 30-32). According to the witness, the NYCTA has rules and regulations outlining the procedure for discharging passengers (id. at 22), and that the most [*3]recent bulletin instructed drivers to "drop the people off where you feel is safe. Just because it's a bus stop, it may not be safe to drop them off so you find the safest... location to drop them off. It might not be that bus stop, it might be a little bit further or a little bit before where you do have clearance where people can get on or off the sidewalk" (id. at 24). He does not recall any incident involving plaintiff (id. at 26).

A common carrier owes a duty to its passengers to stop at a place where they may safely disembark and leave the area (see Malawer v. New York City Tr Auth, 18 AD3d 293, 294-295 [1st Dept 2005], affd 6 NY3d 800). Liability rests upon a finding "that the placement of the bus dictates that the passenger, in order to board [or exit] the bus, must negotiate a dangerous or defective path" (id. at 295 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Whether a common carrier has breached its duty in this regard is generally a question of fact to be determined by the jury (id.). Accordingly, in order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, a common carrier defendant is required to set forth evidentiary facts sufficient to warrant judgment as a matter of law (id.).

At bar, defendants established prima facie, through plaintiff's deposition testimony, that they did not breach their duty as common carriers to provide a safe place for bus passengers to exit (see Garcia-Martinez v. City of New York, 68 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 2009]). Here, plaintiff testified that she was discharged within a designated bus stop at a location directly in front of a very narrow path between two mounds of snow, and that she had safely exited the bus before she fell on the sidewalk. Once a passenger safely disembarks from a bus at a designated bus stop, the bus company's duty to the passenger has been completed, provided that the bus company, as here, exercises no control over the designation of the bus stop (see Rios v. City of New York, 33 AD3d 780, 781-782 [2nd Dept 2006]; Blye v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr Operating Auth, 124 AD2d 106, 109-110 [1st Dept 1987], affd 72 NY2d 888).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment by defendants New York City Transit Authority and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority is granted; and it is furtherORDERED that the complaint and any cross claims asserted against said defendants are hereby severed and dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment and mark his records accordingly.