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
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT AND DEFENDANT’S PETITION TO REDUCE THE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS; FAMILY COURT HAD GRANTED DEFENDANT’S PETITION AND DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
Arbitrator’s Award Which Did Not Resolve the Controversy Properly Vacated
CEMETERY’S APPLICATION FOR A USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A CREMATORY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BY THE ZONING BOARD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE DECORATIVE FENCE IN THE GRASSY AREA BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS CLAIM THAT NOTICE BY MAIL WAS NOT RECEIVED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT COMPLETE THE TREATMENT REQUIRED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT; THE GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE INDUCED BY AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE WHICH USUALLY REQUIRES THAT THE PLEA BE VACATED; HERE SUPREME COURT FELT DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BY THE TREATMENT PROGRAM AND PROPERLY EXERCISED DISCRETION IN FASHIONING A SENTENCE MUCH LESS THAN THAT REQUIRED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT, LEAVING THE GUILTY PLEA IN PLACE (SECOND DEPT).
TWO OF THE COUNTS TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS ALLEGED, THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED ON APPEAL, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION WAS PROCEDURALLY BARRED, STRONG DISSENT.

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