You are here: / / Emergency Doctrine Explained; Admissibility of Deposition Excerpts Re:...

Emergency Doctrine Explained; Admissibility of Deposition Excerpts Re: Summary Judgment Motion Explained; Bicyclist Injured When Path Allegedly Blocked to Protect Child

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants. The plaintiff-bicyclist was injured when, it is alleged, one of the defendants stepped into the bicyclist’s path to protect children who were crossing the street. The court explained the admissibility requirements for excerpts of deposition testimony and an unsworn police report, as well as the emergency doctrine:

The unsigned excerpts of …defendants’ deposition testimony, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, were admissible under CPLR 3116(a) since they were submitted by the party deponents themselves and, accordingly, those transcripts were adopted as accurate by those deponents … . Additionally, although the defendants initially failed to submit the certification page of the depositions of nonparties …, as well as those for the depositions of …defendants, they submitted those certifications in reply papers in response to the plaintiffs’ arguments in opposition … . Under the circumstances of this case, the late submission did not prejudice the plaintiffs, and the Supreme Court properly considered these certifications …. Furthermore, although unsigned, as noted above, the transcripts … were certified, and the plaintiffs did not raise any challenges to their accuracy. Thus, the transcripts qualified as admissible evidence for purposes of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment … . However, the unsigned, uncertified excerpt of the injured plaintiff’s deposition was not in admissible form, nor was the uncertified, unsworn police report submitted by the defendants. Accordingly, neither of these items should have been considered in determining whether the defendants satisfied their prima facie burden … . * * *

“Under the emergency doctrine, when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context” … . ” This is not to say that an emergency automatically absolves one from liability for his [or her] conduct. The standard then still remains that of a reasonable [person] under the given circumstances, except that the circumstances have changed'” … . ” Both the existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a party’s response thereto will ordinarily present questions of fact'” … . Pavane v Marte, 2013 NY Slip Op 05991, 2nd Dept 9-25-13

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER CAN BE LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY A SIDEWALK DEFECT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER’S SPECIAL USE, HERE A CURB CUT FOR A DRIVEWAY, A SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY WHO DOES NOT CONTINUE THE SPECIAL USE WILL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN AN UNPROTECTED TRENCH CAVED IN AND COLLAPSED; THE ABSENCE OF ANY SAFETY DEVICES, LIKE A SAFETY RAILING, VIOLATED LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ASSERTING A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT MENTION AN ALLEGEDLY MISSING STOP SIGN AS A BASIS FOR LIABILITY, THE MISSING STOP SIGN WAS MENTIONED IN THE POLICE REPORT WHICH WAS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE PRIMARY JURISDICTION DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINTS ABOUT FINES IMPOSED BY DEFENDANT NATURAL-GAS PROVIDER MUST FIRST BE HEARD BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE 2014 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO FILL VACANCIES IN THE 2016 COUNTY COMMITTEE (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION, RC, DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED AND WAS NOT FORMED FOR SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE INSTANT LITIGATION; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DEALT WITH RC AS A CORPORATION FOR YEARS AND RECEIVED SOME BENEFIT FROM THE CONTRACT, THE DOCTRINE OF “CORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL” PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM AVOIDING ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT BY ARGUING A NONEXISTENT CORPORATION CANNOT ENTER A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT).
Res Judicata Doctrine Precluded Suit Despite Naming Additional Parties and Alleging Different Causes of Action and Legal Theories

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

14-Day Election Law Statute of Limitations, Not Article 78 Statute of Limitations,... Criteria for Suspension of Judgment in Neglect Proceeding