You are here: / / “Reckless Disregard” Standard of Care Applies to Operators...
, ,

“Reckless Disregard” Standard of Care Applies to Operators of Street Sweepers in New York City—Standard Explained

The Court of Appeals determined the “reckless disregard” standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103, not the ordinary negligence standard, applied to the operator of a New York City street sweeper who was in the process of cleaning the street when the sweeper struck plaintiff’s car.  A question of fact had been raised whether the applicable standard of care was violated:

… [U]nder VTL § 1642, the City of New York is authorized to establish additional rules, including rules that supercede those of the State (see VTL § 1642 [a] [“the legislative body of any city having a population in excess of one million, may by local law . . . restrict or regulate traffic on or pedestrian use of any highway . . .]). At the time of the accident, 34 RCNY [Rules of the City of New York] § 4-02 (d) (1)(v) provided that VTL § 1103 applies “to any person or team or any operator of a motor vehicle or other equipment while actually engaged in work on a highway” and that “such persons are not relieved from the duty to proceed at all times during all phases of such work with due regard for the safety of all persons nor shall the foregoing provisions of this subparagraph protect such persons or teams or such operators of motor vehicles or other equipment from the consequences of their reckless disregard for the safety of others” (34 RCNY § 4-02 [d] [1] [iv]).

In Riley [95 NY2d 455], this Court held that the unambiguous language of VTL § 1103 (b), as further supported by its legislative history, made clear that the statute exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles, including sanitation sweepers, which are “actually engaged in work on a highway” (95 NY2d at 460), and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care (see id. at 466). The Court further concluded that liability under that standard is established upon a showing that the covered vehicle’s operator “‘has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow’ and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” (id. at 466… ). Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 04788, CtApp 6-9-15

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED OUTSIDE THE HOME, HE WAS COERCED INTO TO LEAVING BY A SHOW OF FORCE BY THE POLICE; THEREFORE THE WARRANTLESS ARREST VIOLATED PAYTON; WHETHER THE TENANT’S SUBSEQUENT CONSENT TO SEARCH WAS VOLUNTARY WAS DECIDED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION USING THE WRONG CRITERIA; MATTER REMITTED (CT APP).
THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT HAD SEXUALLY ASSAULTED THE VICITM’S TWO SISTERS WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION; DEFENDANT ADMITTED HAVING ROUGH SEX WITH THE VICTIM AND CLAIMED IT WAS CONSENSUAL; THE PRIOR CRIME EVIDENCE WAS NOT ADMITTED TO PROVE DEFENDANT HAD SEX WITH THE VICTIM. BUT RATHER TO PROVE HIS STATE OF MIND, HIS INTENT TO HAVE NONCONSENSUAL SEX BY FORCE (CT APP).
A Sex Offender Cannot Be Confined to a Treatment Facility as Part of “Strict and Intensive Supervision” under Article 10
Even Though Probable Cause for a DWI Arrest Existed, the Arresting Officer Testified He Was Not Going to Arrest the Defendant Until He Found a Switchblade Knife During a Pat-Down Search—Therefore the Search Could Not Be Justified As a Search Incident to Arrest and the Switchblade Should Have Been Suppressed
BAIL MAY BE IMPOSED ON A DEFENDANT WHO IS CHARGED WITH COMMITTING NEW OFFENSES WHILE OUT ON BAIL, EVEN IF THE NEW OFFENSES WOULD NOT OTHERWISE QUALIFY FOR THE IMPOSITION OF BAIL (CT APP).
Defendant’s Statement Was Circumstantial Evidence of the Taking Element of Grand Larceny Because an Innocent Inference from the Statement Was Possible; Video Surveillance Was Direct Evidence of the Taking Element Despite Defendant’s “Innocent” Explanation of His Actions
HEARSAY STATEMENT BY AN UNAVAILABLE WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS A STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST.
A RESTAURANT PROPERTY-INSURANCE POLICY WHICH COVERS “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” DOES NOT COVER THE LOSS OF BUSINESS CAUSED BY COVID-19 (CT APP).

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

Although the Right to Appeal Could Have Been Defined More Fully, Defendant’s... County Was Not Responsible for the Day to Day Operation of Community College...