You are here: / / CONFLICTING TESTIMONY RAISED QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF THE...

CONFLICTING TESTIMONY RAISED QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the transit defendants in this bicycle-bus accident case. Plaintiff’s decedent was riding her bicycle when a car door opened in front of her. She struck the door and fell over into the path of a bus, which ran over her. Summary judgment was granted to the transit defendants under the emergency doctrine. However, the First Department held that evidence the bus driver’s vision to the side may have been blocked by standing passengers raised a question of fact about the applicability of the emergency doctrine:

Given the conflicting testimony in the record, including that there may have been passengers standing in front of the white line, which partially blocked the bus driver’s view as he passed the red light, it was error for the motion court to have determined the reasonableness of the bus driver’s response to the emergency situation presented, as a matter of law. This is an issue of fact that should be decided by a jury. Powers v Kyong Kwan Min, 2017 NY Slip Op 00716, 1st Dept 2-2-17

NEGLIGENCE (CONFLICTING TESTIMONY RAISED QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE)/BICYCLISTS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, CONFLICTING TESTIMONY RAISED QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (BUS-BICYCLE ACCIDENT, CONFLICTING TESTIMONY RAISED QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE)/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (NEGLIGENCE, BUS-BICYCLE ACCIDENT, CONFLICTING TESTIMONY RAISED QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE)

You might also like
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME WITHOUT SPECIFYING PARTICULAR DATES OR WEEKS; AFFIDAVITS ARE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WILL SUPPORT A “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).
FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ACTION ONLY REQUIRES A CONNECTION BETWEEN A CODE VIOLATION AND A FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY IN A FIRE, NOT A PROXIMATE-CAUSE RELATIONSHIP (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER SOUGHT RECORDS FROM THE NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION (TLC) TO DETERMINE HOW THE COMMISSION WAS HANDLING LICENSE APPLICANTS WITH CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS; THE REQUEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; MATTER REMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).
THE DEFAULT LETTER DID NOT DECLARE THE MORTGAGE DEBT IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE; THEREFORE THE LETTER DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERY BETWEEN LAW SCHOOL AND AN ALLEGED DIPLOMA MILL, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS ASSAULTED IN DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S BUILDING, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER, WHO ENTERED THROUGH AN ALLEGEDLY BROKEN DOOR, OR A TENANT OR AN INVITEE; IF THE ASSAILANT WERE A TENANT OR INVITEE, THE ALLEGEDLY BROKEN DOOR WOULD NOT BE A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THIS NON-TORT ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, IT DID TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE COUNTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS IN THE ELEVATOR SHAFT WHEN THE ELEVATOR, OPERATING NORMALLY, DESCENDED AND CRUSHED HIM; THE ELEVATOR WAS NOT A “FALLING OBJECT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); COMPLAINT DISMISSED (FIRST 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

EXCLUSION FOR INJURY DURING UNLOADING AN INSURED TRAILER APPLIED, EVEN THOUGH... COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE...