You are here: / / A NYC REGULATION REQUIRES FOR-HIRE VEHICLES TO BE WITHIN 12 INCHES OF THE...
,

A NYC REGULATION REQUIRES FOR-HIRE VEHICLES TO BE WITHIN 12 INCHES OF THE CURB WHEN PICKING UP OR DISCHARGING PASSENGERS; THE DRIVER STOPPED TWO FEET FROM THE CURB AND PLAINTIFF FELL TRYING TO GET INTO THE VEHICLE; THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE UBER DRIVER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence action against the driver and owner of an UBER vehicle should not have been dismissed. The driver stopped two feet from the curb and plaintiff tripped trying to get into the vehicle. A NYC regulation requires vehicles-for-hire to be within 12 inches of the curb:

“To hold a defendant liable in common-law negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) that the breach constituted a proximate cause of the injury” …   “Although the issue of proximate cause is generally one for the finder of fact, liability may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnishes the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but is not one of its causes” … .

“A common carrier owes a duty to a passenger to provide a reasonably safe place to board and disembark its vehicle” … . 34 RCNY 4-11(c) requires taxis and for-hire vehicles to be within 12 inches of the curb when picking up or discharging passengers. Porcasi v Oji, 2023 NY Slip Op 05281, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Here the NYC regulation requiring for-hire vehicle to be within 12 inches of the curb when picking up a passenger created a duty on the part of the driver which was breached when the driver stopped two-feet from the curb. The defendant driver did not demonstrate the breach was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall and did not demonstrate the driver’s action merely furnished a condition for the fall. Therefore there are questions of fact for the jury.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT ENTER HIS GUILTY PLEA VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY; HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS PROPERLY DENIED; STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED AN INADQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED ON HEARSAY; THE SECOND MORTGAGE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO MEET THE REQUIRMENTS OF RPAPL 1351 (SECOND DEPT).
REPEATED FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WITH NO EXCUSE WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).
THE INITIAL JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS INCORRECT; ALTHOUGH THE CORRECT INSTRUCTION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN, THE INCORRECT INSTRUCTION WAS NEVER WITHDRAWN; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE IF THE BANK HAD PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A DEFENDANT, THE BANK ESTABLISHED STANDING (NOTE AFFIXED TO THE COMPLAINT), THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 AND 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT USED DRUGS TO EXCESS AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE OR IN THE PAST; THE 15 POINT ASSESSMENT UNDER RISK FACTOR 11 WAS THEREFORE ELIMINATED, REDUCING THE RISK LEVEL FROM THREE TO TWO (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE DISMISSAL OF THE 2009 FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT CONSTITUTE A REVOCATION OF THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TRIGGERED BY THE 2009 ACTION EXPIRED AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ENTITLED TO A DISCHARGE OF THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
Proof Requirements for “Breach of Employment Contract” and “Labor Law Article 6” Actions

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

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT START PROCEEDINGS TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN... PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED PURSUANT TO THE...