You are here: / / Transit Authority Not Liable Under the Emergency Doctrine As a Matter of...

Transit Authority Not Liable Under the Emergency Doctrine As a Matter of Law

The Second Department determined the defendant New York City Transit Authority was not liable to the plaintiff as a matter of law under the emergency doctrine.  Plaintiff was a passenger in the Transit Authority’s vehicle when defendant Franco allegedly backed out of a driveway at a high rate of speed (to get over a snow bank) into the path of the Transit Authority’s vehicle. “The common-law emergency doctrine ‘recognizes that 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, provided the actor has not created the emergency’  … . ‘Although the existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of the response to it generally present questions of fact, those issues may in appropriate circumstances be determined as a matter of law”…”. Majid v New York City Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 03809, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

You might also like
CRIME OF ATTEMPTED ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE IS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FORMER APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ARGUE DEFENDANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE TIME-BARRED ENDANGERING-THE-WELFARE-OF-A-CHILD COUNTS; WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COOPERATIVE BOARD’S PARKING RESTRICTION WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MERE DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR (SECOND DEPT).
AN ARBITRATOR’S DETERMINATION WILL NOT BE REVERSED BECAUSE OF AN ERROR OF LAW, BUT WILL BE REVERSED WHERE, AS HERE, IT IS IRRATIONAL (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT OF WHETHER THE FOUR-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF UNDERSTOOD AND ASSUMED THE RISKS OF PARTICIPATING IN A YOUTH HOCKEY CLINIC; THE COACH, WHILE SKATING BACKWARDS, FELL ON THE CHILD; DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
STATE HAS NO DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF NATURAL CONDITIONS OF THE OCEAN FLOOR, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE DIVING INTO WAVES (SECOND DEPT).

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

Bar Patron Was Beaten to Death by Other Patrons—Defendants (Bar and Premises... Question of Fact Whether County Had Constructive Notice of Pothole Which Injured...