You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED BY THE...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT CASE; THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to the emergency doctrine should not have been granted in this automobile accident case:

A white van that was exiting the Parkway proceeded to the stop sign where the off-ramp intersects with Greenleaf Road and then made a sudden left-hand turn in front of the vehicle that defendant was operating. Defendant tried to avoid the van by braking and swerving to the right. In doing so, he maneuvered his vehicle the wrong way onto the off-ramp, where it collided with the driver’s side of the vehicle operated by plaintiff. …

“In general, the issues whether a qualifying emergency existed and whether the driver’s response thereto was reasonable are for the trier of fact” … , and this case is no exception to the general rule. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant was faced with a qualifying sudden and unexpected emergency, we conclude that defendants failed to meet their initial burden on the motion of establishing that defendant’s conduct was appropriate under the circumstances … . Schwallie v Farnan, 2020 NY Slip Op 05316, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

You might also like
IN THIS PARTITION ACTION, THERE WAS NO PENDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION THE PARTIES HAD LAID THEIR PROOF BARE SUCH THAT THE COURT COULD CONSIDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE INCORRECTLY PARAPHRASED THE JURY NOTE; CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION WAS NOT PROVEN BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH UNPRESERVED THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL FOR THE SORA HEARING WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY; THE NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT WAS INADEQUATE (FOURTH DEPT).
CLAIMANTS DID NOT ALLEGE WHEN THE ALLEGED INJURIES RELATED TO TOXIC CONTAMINATION WERE INCURRED, CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).
CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT DURING THE ENCOUNTER WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT NURSING HOME SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND IN NEGLIGENCE, REQUIRING ANALYSES USING DIFFERENT CRITERIA; SOME CAUSES OF ACTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH 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 APPEAL WAS HELD IN ABEYANCE AND THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION... DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE...