You are here: / / EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT...

EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case was properly granted pursuant to the emergency doctrine. Plaintiff’s car crossed into oncoming traffic and struck defendants’ car. Defendants demonstrated the emergency doctrine applied. No question of fact was raised about defendant driver’s negligence:

The defendants established, prima facie, that the defendant driver was presented with an emergency situation not of his own making when the plaintiff’s vehicle crossed over into his lane of traffic, and that he acted reasonably in response to that emergency … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, her deposition testimony, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, did not create a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver’s negligence contributed to the occurrence of the accident … . Graci v Kingsley, 2017 NY Slip Op 00291, 2nd Dept 1-18-17

NEGLIGENCE (EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)

You might also like
NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW INJURY AND THEORY OF LIABILITY.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE GRAVES AMENDMENT, WHICH RELIEVES THE OWNER OF A LEASED VEHICLE FROM LIABILITY FOR A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, DID NOT APPLY TO THE DEFENDANT OWNER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Conviction Should Not Have Been Denied Without a Hearing On the Ground It Was Untimely/The Motion Raised Legal Grounds for Relief (Evidence Withheld at Trial) and There Is No Time Limit for a Motion to Vacate a Conviction Pursuant to CPL 440.10
LACK OF SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT’S FALL, PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGING IN AGE-APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR TAKING TURNS JUMPING OVER A KNEE-HIGH FENCE WHEN SHE FELL AND WAS INJURED, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO COULD NOT SAY HE WOULD NOT HOLD DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TESTIFY AGAINT HIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A POLICE OFFICER WHO SPENT ONLY 10 OR 15 MINUTES WITH THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT IN A VIDEO, DESPITE THE CHANGE IN DEFENDANT’S APPEARANCE (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Did Not Establish It Was the Lawful Holder of the Note on the Date the Action Was Commenced
Dismissal of Complaint Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Appropriate Where Documentary Evidence Flatly Contradicts Allegations in the Complaint
Maintenance Should Not Have Been Granted in Absence of Proof of Standard of Living and Need for Maintenance

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NO DUTY OWED BY CAB COMPANY TO GENERAL PUBLIC, PLAINTIFF INJURED BY THE CAB... STATE DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF RIP CURRENTS AT STATE BEACHE...