You are here: / / ONLY THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT ENUMERATED IN VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104 (E)...
,

ONLY THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT ENUMERATED IN VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104 (E) IS SUBJECT TO THE HIGHER “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD OF CARE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES; OTHER INJURY-CAUSING ACTIONS INVOLVING THE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE STANDARD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that while parking in a “no standing” zone maybe subject to the “reckless disregard” standard for emergency vehicles, other injury-causing actions may not be exempt from the ordinary negligence standard:

“[T]he reckless disregard standard of care in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e) only applies when a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation engages in the specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b)” … . “Any other injury-causing conduct of such a driver is governed by the principles of ordinary negligence” … . Here, although defendants established that they engaged in conduct covered by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b)(1) by parking in a “No Standing” area, there were, at a minimum, questions of fact whether the ambulance had its emergency lights and sirens activated as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(c). Taveras v Almodovar, 2022 NY Slip Op 05385, First Dept 9-29-22

Practice Point: Only the specific conduct enumerated in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104 (e) is subject to the higher “reckless disregard” standard of care for emergency vehicles. Other injury-causing actions involving the emergency vehicle (i.e. failure to activate emergency lights and sirens) are subject to the ordinary negligence standard.

 

You might also like
VERDICT AWARDING $0 DAMAGES FOR FUTURE AND PAIN SUFFERING SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, $100,000 WOULD BE REASONABLE COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT).
SUBPOENAS RELATING TO CROSS CLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED (FIRST DEPT).
Judicial Hearing Officer Does Not Have Power to Find Non-Witness Guilty of Contempt
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE, A SECURITY GUARD, ATTACKED HER; DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGED PLAINTIFF ATTACKED HIM AND HE ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE; THE EMPLOYER WOULD NOT BE LIABLE UNDER EITHER SCENARIO; THE EMPLOYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Proof of Janitorial Schedule Demonstrated Absence of Constructive Notice of Liquid on Stairs
DEFENSE COUNSEL TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT ON DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION AFTER NEW COUNSEL IS ASSIGNED (FIRST DEPT).
Count (on which Jury Could Not Reach a Verdict) Dismissed Before “Entry of Sentence” on the Remaining Count Can Be Reprosecuted after Appeal
BANK NOT LIABLE FOR PAYMENT RE: FRAUDULENT CHECKS SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF BUT ALTERED BY PLAINTIFF’S BOOKKEEPER TO PAY OFF HER CREDIT CARD BILLS (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

THE DEFENDANT “DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK STATE’S” INSURERS... DEFENSE COUNSEL MISTAKENLY FAILED TO NOTIFY THE PROSECUTION OF AN ALIBI WITNESS;...