You are here: / Vehicle and Traffic Law
, , ,

THE SUFFOLK COUNTY CODE PROVISIONS WHICH ALLOW THE SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF VEHICLES USED BY DRUNK DRIVERS IS CONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCormack, determined the provisions of the Suffolk County Code which provide for the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles used by drunk drivers is constitutional:

On this appeal, we are called upon to consider the validity of Suffolk County’s civil forfeiture statute, codified in chapter 420, article II (hereinafter chapter 420) of the Code of Suffolk County (hereinafter the Code), pursuant to which a vehicle being operated by the defendant Hassan Qamar (hereinafter the defendant) was seized at the time of his arrest for driving while intoxicated. The defendant challenges the validity of chapter 420 of the Code on three bases: (1) that the procedures relating to the post-seizure hearings conducted pursuant thereto violate article VI of the New York State Constitution, and deprived him of due process of law, (2) that the provisions of chapter 420 of the Code are preempted by State law, and (3) that the forfeiture of his vehicle constitutes an excessive fine prohibited by the State and Federal Constitutions. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the defendant’s challenges to the procedures involving the post-seizure hearing have been rendered academic, and that there is no merit to his remaining challenges. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. * * *

… [A] Suffolk County Police Department (hereinafter the SCPD) police officer observed the defendant operating a Nissan Altima (hereinafter the vehicle) on Pulaski Road in Huntington at a speed of 100 miles per hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone and passing a steady red traffic control light. According to the felony complaint, the defendant, inter alia, had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath and admitted having “a few beers and a few shots of J[a]m[e]son[ ] W[h]iskey.” The defendant purportedly displayed “clues indicative of intoxication upon submitting to standardized field sobriety test” and submitted to a chemical breath test that resulted in a .20% blood alcohol content. The defendant was arrested and charged with aggravated driving while intoxicated per se pursuant to VTL § 1192(2-a)(a) and driving while intoxicated pursuant to VTL § 1192(3). The defendant had previously been convicted of driving while intoxicated pursuant to VTL § 1192(3) on April 1, 2015. The vehicle was seized and impounded by the SCPD pursuant to chapter 420 of the Code. * * *

… [T]he defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated driving while intoxicated per se pursuant to VTL § 1192(2-a)(a), with one prior conviction. …

 … [T]he plaintiff commenced this civil forfeiture action pursuant to chapter 420 of the Code, seeking forfeiture of the defendant’s vehicle.   Cohen v A 2019 Nissan, 2026 NY Slip Op 05158, Second Dept 9-2-26

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT TREATING NEUROLOGIST INDICATED ON A DMV FORM FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE PATIENT-DRIVER’S LICENSE THAT THE DRIVER’S LAST SEIZURE WAS TWO YEARS BEFORE WHEN, IN FACT, THE LAST SEIZURE WAS FOUR MONTHS BEFORE; TWO MONTHS AFTER REINSTATEMENT OF THE LICENSE, THE DRIVER HAD A SEIZURE-RELATED ACCIDENT IN WHICH PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENTS DIED; THE ACTION AGAINST THE NEUROLOGIST SOUNDED IN ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE, NOT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY BROUGHT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the action sounded in negligence, not medical malpractice, rendering the action timely brought. Defendant neurologist was treating the non-party driver for seizures. In filling out a NYS Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) form for reinstatement of the driver’s license, defendant stated that the driver’s last seizure was about two years before, when in fact the last seizure was four months before. To be entitled to reinstatement of the driver’s license, the driver must have been free of seizures for the previous 12 months. Two months after the driver’s license was reinstated, the driver had a seizure which resulted in a horrific traffic accident in which two people died. The lawsuit was brought by their estates:

… [P]laintiffs’ survival-action claims, premised on the theory that Dr. Avila erroneously recorded the date of the driver’s last seizure in the DMV form, which error led to the DMV reinstating the driver’s license, sound in ordinary negligence. The crux of the survival-action claims is not Dr. Avila’s negligence in furnishing medical treatment to the driver; rather, the essence of the claims is that Dr. Avila failed to fulfill a different duty. The nature of the act underlying those claims — transcribing a date from a treatment note to a governmental administration form — “is more administrative than medical in nature” … . Because the act underpinning the survival-action claims is administrative in nature, jurors can use their common everyday experience to evaluate whether Dr. Avila exercised due care … . That a physician made the alleged administrative error does not transform the claim from one sounding in ordinary negligence to one for medical malpractice; the characterization of a particular claim depends not on the title of the actor but on the nature of the challenged act … .

Ultimately, the core issue related to plaintiffs’ survival-action claims — whether Dr. Avila failed to exercise due care in recording a fact on the DMV form — may not implicate questions of medical competence or judgment regarding the treatment of the driver … . Unlike the inquiry on a medical malpractice claim, whether Dr. Avila breached his duty to exercise due care in recording a fact on the DMV form does not depend on an analysis of the medical treatment rendered to the driver … . Lafferty v Avila, 2026 NY Slip Op 05147, First Dept 8-27-26

Practice Point: If a jury does not need to analyze the medical treatment rendered by a doctor to determine a doctor’s negligence, the action does not sound in medical malpractice and is subject to a three-year statute of limitations for ordinary negligence.

 

, ,

THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF DEFENDANT DRIVER’S STRIKING A 12-YEAR-OLD PEDESTRIAN WAS THE PEDESTRIAN’S SUDDENLY RUNNING ONTO THE HIGHWAY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined this traffic-accident action stemming from defendant’s striking a 12-year-old pedestrian (J.W.) should have been dismissed. J.W. suddenly ran into defendant driver’s (Li’s) highway lane:

Li testified that he was driving south in the right lane of the Hutchinson River Parkway in the Bronx at about 45 miles per hour when he first saw J.W. standing 100 feet in front of him in a grassy area on the side of the highway to his right. Li testified that when the vehicle approached, J.W. made a “running gesture” and began to run towards the vehicle when it was approximately two car lengths away. Li did not brake or honk his horn, but did take his foot off the gas pedal and was in the process of moving into the left lane to move away from J.W. when J.W. entered the highway, at which point the front right side of the van struck him. Police conducted sobriety tests at the scene and allowed Li to drive the van from the scene. He did not receive a ticket, violation, or citation as a result of the collision. It is undisputed that pedestrians are prohibited from occupying the location where J.W. was traversing (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-a).

Defendants established prima facie that J.W.’s act of running into the highway unlawfully was the sole proximate cause of the collision … . Li’s testimony shows that he was confronted with a sudden and unforeseen situation in which he was forced to make a split second decision and could not “weigh alternative courses of action” such that “he cannot reasonably be held to the same conduct as one who has had full opportunity to reflect” … . “While it is often a jury question whether a person’s reaction to an emergency was reasonable, summary resolution is possible when the individual presents sufficient evidence to support the reasonableness of his or her actions and there is no opposing evidentiary showing sufficient to raise a legitimate question of fact on the issue” … . Danielle W. v Li, 2026 NY Slip Op 04821, First Dept 7-30-26

 

,

THAT PLAINTIFF IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT HAVE A PROPER DRIVER’S LICENSE DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the fact that plaintiff in this traffic accident case did not have a proper driver’s license at the time of the accident did not raise a question of fact about plaintiff’s purported comparative negligence:

… [T]hat plaintiff was driving without a proper driver’s license does not provide a basis for finding an issue of fact as to comparative negligence (see Huff v Rodriguez, 88 AD3d 1274, 1275 [4th Dept 2011] …”[“the absence or possession of a driver’s license is not relevant to the issue of negligence”]). Torres v Occhino, 2026 NY Slip Op 03412, First Dept 6-2-25

Practice Point: In a traffic accident case, the fact that plaintiff did not have a proper driver’s license does not raise a question of fact about plaintiff’s purported comparative negligence.

 

, , ,

TO THE EXTENT VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW SECTION 370 HAS BEEN INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE RENTAL-CAR COMPANIES TO PROVIDE PRIMARY LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE TO RENTER-DRIVERS, SECTION 370 IS PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL “GRAVES AMENDMENT” (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, affirming the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissent, determined the federal “Graves Amendment (49 USC 30106),” which relieves rental-car companies of vicarious liability for the negligence of the renter-drivers, preempts Vehicle and Traffic Law 370 to the extent that section 370 has been interpreted to require rental companies to provide primary liability insurance coverage to renters. But section 370’s requirement that rental-car companies carry a specified minimum amount of insurance is not preempted by the Graves Amendment:

The Appellate Division [held] that “the Graves Amendment does not supersede Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370 insofar as it is a state law that requires rental car companies to carry a specified minimum amount of insurance for each of their vehicles” but “is superseded to the extent it requires a rental car company to ‘provide primary insurance to their renters up to the minimum liability limits provided by the statute’ ” … . The Court reasoned that “[t]o hold otherwise would rescue every vicarious liability claim up to statutory minimum insurance amounts and render the Graves Amendment’s preemption clause a nullity” … . The Court further held that section 370 does not reverse preempt the Graves Amendment under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, because the Graves Amendment “does not entirely ‘invalidate, impair, or supersede’ ” section 370 … . * * *

We note that the Graves Amendment does not free car rental companies from all liability arising from the use of a rented vehicle. On the contrary, it expressly permits States to impose liability on rental companies for damages arising from their own negligence or criminal wrongdoing (see 49 USC § 30106 [a] [2]). Nor does the Graves Amendment restrict New York’s ability to require rental companies to obtain insurance, no matter what kind, “for the privilege of registering and operating a motor vehicle” (id. § 30106 [b] [1]). Our decision today does not affect section 370’s requirement that car rental companies obtain insurance coverage for such other liability or for the privilege of registering vehicles in New York. Rather, we narrowly hold that the Graves Amendment preempts Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370 to the extent that it requires car rental companies to provide primary liability insurance to their renters up to the statute’s minimum liability amounts. Second Child v Edge Auto, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 02436, CtApp 4-23-26

Practice Point: The interpretation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 370 which required rental-car companies to provide primary liability insurance to renter-drivers has been preempted by the federal “Graves Amendment.”​

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE COURT FOUND THAT THE DEPUTY DID NOT SOUND HER AIR HORN BEFORE THE INTERSECTION COLLISION WITH PLAINTIFFS’ VEHICLE, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPUTY TOOK PRECAUTIONS BEFORE ENTERING THE INTERSECTION; THEREFORE THE COUNTY DEMONSTRATED THE DEPUTY DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over an extensive dissent, determined the county was entitled to summary judgment in this negligence suit stemming from an intersection accident involving a sheriff’s deputy (Wong) who was responding to an emergency call. Although the court found that Wong did not sound her air horn prior to the collision with plaintiffs’ (Granaths’) car, the evidence demonstrated Wong did not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others:

It is undisputed that, before proceeding through the intersection, Deputy Fong slowed down, came to a complete stop at least once, observed northbound traffic, waited for that traffic to yield to her, and turned on her overheard lights. The Granaths contend that a jury could nonetheless find that Deputy Fong exhibited reckless disregard for the safety of others by failing to activate her air horn or siren; declining to call in a “Code 77” as required by MCSD [sheriff’s department] policy; and proceeding into the intersection despite having an obstructed view of southbound traffic.

We agree with the Appellate Division that defendants met their initial burden on their summary judgment motion and that, in opposition, the Granaths failed to raise a material triable issue of fact. Even assuming Deputy Fong failed to activate her air horn or siren, call in a “Code 77,” or observe southbound traffic—either because her view was obstructed or she neglected to look to her right—taken together with the actions she undisputably did take—slowing down, stopping, activating her emergency lights and proceeding only once she observed northbound traffic yield to her—we cannot conclude that Deputy Fong, with “conscious indifference to the outcome,” “reckless[ly] disregard[ed] . . . a highly probable risk of harm” … . Granath v Monroe County, 2026 NY Slip Op 01586, CtApp 3-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the meaning of “reckless disregard for the safety of others” in the context of an intersection traffic accident involving a sheriff’s deputy responding to an emergency call.

 

, ,

A POLICE CAR RESPONDING AN EMERGENCY CALL SWERVED INTO A TURN LANE TO PASS A CAR AND STRUCK A SKATEBOARDER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OFFICER ACTED WITH “RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the “reckless disregard” standard for liability applied to this accident involving a police car and a skateboarder, and (2) the county defendants did not eliminate all questions of fact about whether the “reckless disregard” standard was met. The officer was responding a call from a woman in labor with complications. The officer struck the skateboarder, who was in a turn lane, when the officer swerved into the turn lane to pass a car:

The “reckless disregard” standard demands more than a showing of a lack of “due care under the circumstances” … . “It requires evidence that the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” … . “This standard requires a showing of more than a momentary lapse in judgment” … .

Here, the defendants established that the reckless disregard standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 was applicable to Degere’s [the officer’s] conduct because he was responding to a radio call of a woman going into labor with complications … . However, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint because their moving papers failed to eliminate all issues of material fact regarding whether Degere acted recklessly by either traveling at a high speed in the center turn lane in a school zone with poor lighting conditions or abruptly merging into the center turn lane without first looking to his left or activating his turn signal … . Moccasin v Suffolk County, 2026 NY Slip Op 01049, Second Dept 2-25-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what constitutes “reckless disregard for the safety of others” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104 in the context of a police officer responding to an emergency call.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE COMMITTED A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR BY FAILING TO ACCURATELY AND FULLY INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the judge committed a mode of proceedings error by not fully explaining the contents of a jury note. The defendant testified that he was sitting in his parked car, with the engine running for heat, listening to music because he didn’t want to disturb his family in a nearby house. The police noticed the car running and found the defendant asleep with an open beer in his hand. Defendant was charged with DWI and other offenses. The jury sent out notes seeking clarification of the term “operate” asking whether “operation” requires an intent to drive the vehicle or whether merely having the engine running constitutes “”operation:”

The court … read the note into the record as follows:

“We the jury would like clarification on the law regarding the first three charges. There is a portion that states the operation is intent to move the vehicle. There was, however, another segment. That segment, stated that operation is if the engine is running.”

When it read the note to the parties it omitted a question from the jury … . The full note stated:

“We would like clarification on the law regarding the first 3 charges. There is a portion that states that operation is intent to move the vehicle. There was however another segment that segment that stated that operation is if the engine is running. Are both correct?” … .

When the court read [another] portion of the note aloud, the court again altered the jury language. The court stated:

“And, then they also said the law for consumption of alcohol beverages in certain motor vehicles does not seem to contain a section that includes solely the engine running, which is also correct, and I will just read them that charge. Is that acceptable?”

But the note read:

“Also, the law for [Consumption] of Alcoholic Beverages in certain motor vehicles does not seem to contain the section that includes solely the engine is running. Is this also correct?. * * *

The court’s failure to read the jury note verbatim, or otherwise create a record demonstrating that the parties had received a copy of the note, deprived Mr. Galindo [defendant] of meaningful notice of the precise contents of the substantive jury note. By omitting the question “Are both correct?”, the court obscured the nature of the jury’s inquiry with respect to the “operates” element shared by the three counts of intoxication and the unlicensed operation charge. The jury’s question strongly suggests it wanted to know whether the “operates” instruction contained two distinct conditions either one of which could satisfy the “operates” element. Put differently, the jury’s question crystallizes its inquiry: whether intent to move the vehicle was necessary or a running engine was sufficient to meet the definition of operation. Had Mr. Galindo been accurately apprised of the contents of the jury note, he would have had the opportunity to provide input into how the court resolved the jury’s inquiry. Instead, Mr. Galindo was deprived of meaningful notice, and rereading the original CJI instruction responsible for the jury’s initial confusion did not adequately address the jury’s question. People v Galindo, 2026 NY Slip Op 00965, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: Here the judge’s failure to read out the jury note verbatim constituted a  mode of proceedings error.

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE FOR “IMPAIRMENT” WHICH WAS APPLIED BY THE THIRD DEPARTMENT IN A RECENT VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE; IT WAS NOT CLEAR THE “IMPAIRMENT” CHARGE IN THE VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE WAS APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT “DRIVING WHILE ABILITY IMPAIRED BY DRUGS” CASE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction based upon a recent Third Department appellate decision [People v Caden N, 189 AD2d at 90-91] which was not clearly applicable. The Third Department had held that the standard for “impairment by drugs” in a vehicular manslaughter case was the higher standard used for “intoxication by alcohol” [a ruling rejected by Court of Appeals in People v Dondorfer, 2026 NY Slip Op 00823, CtApp 2-17-26]. T he charges in the instant case were “driving while ability impaired by drugs,” not vehicular manslaughter:

Defendant argues that Caden N. established a clear right within the Third Department to a jury charge in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (4) and (4-a) cases that defines impairment by drugs consistent with the higher standard of intoxication by alcohol from Cruz [48 NY2d at 422, 428]. But as the Third Department itself explained below, the holding and reasoning of Caden N. were carefully limited to the statutory scheme for vehicular manslaughter, and at the time of defendant’s trial, no court in this State had extended the reasoning of Caden N. to charges under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (4) or (4-a) … . Further, the model jury instructions—on which this Court has advised both counsel and trial courts to rely …—were not revised to account for Caden N. until December 2021, three months after defendant’s trial … . Even then, the CJI [Criminal Jury Instructions] Committee advised in an explanatory note that “Caden N. did not explicitly discuss whether the standard for impairment for purposes of a prosecution for [vehicular] manslaughter in the second degree was also the standard to be applied in a prosecution for only VTL 1192 (4),” and that, “until an appellate court decides otherwise,” a trial court may “decide to apply Caden N.’s definition of impairment for a vehicular manslaughter or assault charge and the impaired ‘to any extent’ definition for a VTL driving while impaired by the use of a drug or combination of [substances] charge” … . People v Ambrosio, 2026 NY Slip Op 00824, CtApp 2-17-26

Practice Point: Here defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a jury charge which was not clearly applicable to the offense.

 

,

THE STANDARD FOR “IMPAIRMENT BY ALCOHOL AND DRUGS” IS THE SAME AS FOR “IMPAIRMENT BY ALCOHOL” IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW’S DWI SCHEME; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S APPLICATION OF THE HIGHER “INTOXICATION” STANDARD TO “IMPAIRMENT BY ALCOHOL AND DRUGS” WAS REJECTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the standard for “impairment” in the context of “aggravated driving while ability impaired by a combination of drugs and alcohol” is the same as for “impairment by alcohol.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the Fourth Department’s rejection of the Third Department’s application of the higher “intoxication” in the context of impairment by drugs:

After the car he was driving with his fifteen-year-old daughter as a passenger was stopped by police, defendant admitted to drinking “a couple of strong beers” and smoking marijuana. He failed several standard field sobriety tests, and an officer certified as a drug recognition expert determined, based on a 12-step evaluation, that defendant was impaired by the combination of alcohol and cannabis and was unable to safely operate a vehicle. The People presented an indictment to the grand jury charging defendant with aggravated driving while ability impaired by a combination of drugs and alcohol with a child in the vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2-a] [b], [4-a]). For purposes of that charge, the prosecutor defined impaired as follows:

“A person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired by the combined influence of alcohol and drugs when that combination of alcohol and drugs has actually impaired, to any extent, the physical and mental abilities which such person is expected to possess in order to operate a motor vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver.” * * *

… [I]n People v Caden N. [189 AD3d 84, 90-91], the Third Department held that Cruz’s [48 NY2d at 427-428] definition of impairment applied only “in the limited context” of driving while ability impaired by alcohol (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]) and instead defined impairment for drug consumption in accordance with the Cruz standard for alcohol intoxication … . Relying on Caden N., defendant argues that for offenses involving drug use, or drug and alcohol use combined, courts should define impairment using Cruz’s intoxication standard. We disagree with that approach and hold that “impaired” should be interpreted consistently across Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 in accordance with the definition that this Court gave that term in People v Cruz and therefore affirm. People v Dondorfer, 2026 NY Slip Op 00823, CtApp 2-17-26

​Practice Point: The standard  for “impairment” in the context of a Vehicle and Traffic Law violation for “impairment by alcohol and drugs” is the same as for “impairment by alcohol.” The higher “intoxication” standard applied by the Third Department for impairment by drugs was rejected.

 

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