You are here: / Vehicle and Traffic Law
,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK IN THE ON-COMING LANE WHILE ATTEMPTING A LEFT TURN IN AN INTERSECTION, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case should not have been granted. Although plaintiff was making a left turn when he was struck by defendant in the on-coming lane, there was a question of fact whether defendant should have seen plaintiff. Plaintiff was making the turn after a stopped driver in the on-coming law gestured to him:

… [A]lthough the defendant submitted evidence that the plaintiff failed to yield the right-of-way when turning left in violation of Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1141, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s failure to yield was the sole proximate cause of the collision and that the defendant was free from fault … . While testifying, the defendant admitted that he saw nothing out of the ordinary prior to the collision, that he could not recall if he observed the plaintiff’s vehicle, and that he only realized that there was a collision from hearing the sound. However, the defendant also testified that he was only driving at approximately 25 miles per hour and was looking straight ahead on a sunny afternoon with no obstructions to his view … . Moreover, the defendant acknowledged that he did not know if his vehicle or the plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection first. Thus, the defendant’s evidentiary submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s vehicle was already in the intersection as the defendant approached and whether the defendant should have observed the plaintiff’s vehicle making a left turn in time to take evasive action to avoid the accident … . Blake v Francis, 2022 NY Slip Op 02974, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: Although plaintiff may have violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by making a left turn in the path of defendant’s car, there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident. Here there was a question of fact whether defendant should have seen the plaintiff as he attempted the turn.

 

,

THE RIGHT LANE WAS FOR RIGHT TURNS ONLY; THE MIDDLE LANE WAS FOR EITHER GOING STRAIGHT OR TURNING RIGHT; HERE THE DRIVER IN THE FAR RIGHT LANE DID NOT TURN RIGHT AND STRUCK THE CAR IN THE MIDDLE LANE WHICH WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN; THE DRIVER IN THE MIDDLE LANE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against defendant Rubio should not have been granted and defendant Rubio’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff was a passenger in a taxi driven by defendant Muy-Angamarca. Muy-Angamarca was in the far right lane, which was for right turns only. Rubio was in the middle lane which could be used to go straight or turn right. When Rubio attempted the right turn, Muy-Angamarco continued straight and struck Rubio’s car:

… [T]he Rubio defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the sole proximate cause of the accident was Muy-Angamarca’s vehicle continuing straight through the intersection in disregard of a traffic sign directing that his lane was for right turns only … . Based upon Muy-Angamarca’s disregard of the traffic sign, he was in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and thus, he was negligent as a matter of law (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110[a] …). Rubio was entitled to assume that Muy-Angamarca would obey the traffic sign requiring Muy-Angamarca to turn right … . Indeed, the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he observed that Rubio had signaled before making a legal right turn from the middle lane, that Muy-Angamarca “started to accelerate” toward the intersection while Rubio’s vehicle was turning, and that he did not believe Rubio was at fault in the happening of the accident. Ellsworth v Rubio, 2022 NY Slip Op 02781, Second Dept 4-27-22

 

,

REFUSING TO TAKE A DWI BREATH TEST IS NOT AN OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction and dismissing the count, noted that refusing to take a DWI breath test is not an offense:

… [W]e note that defendant’s “refusal to submit to a breath test did not establish a cognizable offense” … . People v Alim, 2022 NY Slip Op 02671, Fourth Dept  4-22-22

Practice Point: Refusing to take a DWI breath test is not a crime.

 

, , , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE RECORDS OF TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS ARE SEALED PURSUANT TO CPL 160.55, THE RECORDS OF A VIOLATION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 19-190(b), AN UNCLASSIFIED MISDEMEANOR WHICH CRIMINALIZES STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY, ARE NOT SEALED; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THOSE RECORDS IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case was entitled to the records of the driver’s guilty plea to an unclassified misdemeanor (under the NYC Administrative Code), which criminalizes striking a pedestrian who has the right of way: The unclassified misdemeanor is not covered by the sealing statute, Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 160.55 which seals records of Vehicle and Traffic Law infractions:

… [Defendant driver] was arrested, charged, and subsequently pled guilty to Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-190(b), an unclassified misdemeanor, and to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(c)(1), a traffic violation, for failing to yield to plaintiff’s decedent and causing him injury. Plaintiff … now seeks the records pertaining to [the driver’s] unclassified misdemeanor. The City defendants argue that these records are not discoverable because they overlap with [the driver’s] traffic infraction records, which are sealed pursuant to CPL 160.55.

Under CPL 160.55, all records and papers relating to the arrest or prosecution of an individual convicted of a traffic infraction or violation, following a criminal action or proceeding, shall be sealed and not made available to any person or public or private agency … . Plaintiff is entitled to [the driver’s] records pertaining to his unclassified misdemeanor, as the records are not subject to CPL 160.55, and it does not appear that they were sealed … . To the extent these records contain references or information related solely to [the driver’s] sealed traffic violation case, the City must redact or remove it from its production. Lu-Wong v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 02226, First Dept 4-5-22

Practice Point: Although the records of traffic infractions are sealed under CPL 160.55, the records of a violation of the NYC Administrative Code, which criminalizes striking a pedestrian who has the right-of-way, are not subject to that sealing statute. Therefore the plaintiff in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case was entitled to those records.

 

,

SUN GLARE DID NOT CREATE AN EMERGENCY FOR THE BUS DRIVER WHO STRUCK PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the defendant bus driver and bus company did not raise a question of fact on the applicability of the emergency doctrine.. Defendants alleged sun glare prevented the driver from seeing plaintiff pedestrian in the crosswalk:

… [T]he defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Ruff’s foreseeable encounter with sun glare, while driving on a route with which he was familiar, was an emergency not of his own making, which left him with only seconds to react and virtually no opportunity to avoid a collision with the plaintiff … . Morales-Rodriguez v MTA Bus Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 01781, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: Here the bus driver alleged sun glare created an emergency which should excuse his striking plaintiff pedestrian. The allegation did not raise a triable question of fact.

 

, ,

IN THIS POLICE-CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE POLICE OFFICER’S SPECIFIC CONDUCT WAS EXEMPT FROM THE ORDINARY RULES OF THE ROAD PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICER WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE ORDINARY RULES OF NEGLIGENCE; THE MUNICIPALITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant municipality did not demonstrate that the reckless disregard standard applied or that the police officer was not negligent in this police-car traffic accident case:

“[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)” … . Even where there is no dispute that the driver was involved in an emergency operation of an authorized vehicle, where the injury-causing conduct did not fall within any of the categories of privileged conduct set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), the plaintiff’s claim is governed by principles of ordinary negligence … .

Here, the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether [officer] Giandurco engaged in specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b) and whether the reckless disregard standard of care was therefore applicable … . The defendants also failed to establish, prima facie, that under principles of ordinary negligence, Giandurco was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . Cooney v Port Chester Police Dept., 2022 NY Slip Op 01440, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: Even if a police car is engaged in an emergency operation at the time of a traffic accident, the police officer’s conduct is not automatically judged under the reckless disregard standard for emergency vehicles in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104. The officer’s specific conduct must fall within one of the the categories of privileged conduct in the statute. Otherwise the ordinary rules of negligence apply. At the summary-judgment stage, a municipality must demonstrate either that the specific conduct was exempt from the ordinary rules of negligence, or that the specific conduct was not culpable under the ordinary rules of negligent. Here the municipality did not demonstrate either one.

 

, ,

WILLIAMS, THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN SLOWING DOWN FOR A WORK CREW AHEAD; THE WILLIAMS CAR WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND BY A POLICE CAR PURSUING ANOTHER VEHICLE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. A police officer pursuing another vehicle rear-ended the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger as the driver (Williams) was slowing down for a work crew:

Williams’s evidence in support of his motion demonstrated prima facie that he was operating his vehicle in a lawful, reasonable manner given the circumstances on the expressway at the time, and that he was not otherwise culpable in causing the police car to strike the rear of his vehicle. The burden having shifted, plaintiff and the City defendants each failed to offer evidence as would raise a factual issue regarding Williams’s comparable negligence in the cause of the accident … . The City defendants failed to proffer a nonnegligent explanation for rear-ending Williams’s vehicle, and the claim that the rear-ended vehicle stopped short, standing alone, is insufficient as a nonnegligent explanation for an accident … . Regardless of whether the actions of the police in this incident are to be considered under the reckless standard set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, the nonliability of Williams, given the unrefuted evidence of his nonculpable role in this accident, remains unchanged … . Grant v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 01121, First Dept 2-22-22

 

, , ,

A STATEMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AUTHENTICATING PHOTOGRAPHS OF PETITIONER’S CAR RUNNING A RED LIGHT NEED NOT BE NOTARIZED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city (NYC) was not required to submit a notarized statement from the Department of Transportation authenticating photographs of petitioner’s car running a red light:

For over half a century, the legislature has consistently provided for prima facie liability for minor traffic offenses to be established by a simple, nonnotarized affirmation under penalty of perjury, using the same “sworn to or affirmed” language. Legislative history establishes the plain intent and meaning of the “sworn to or affirmed” language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-a(d): that the reviewing technician merely affirm, under penalty of perjury, the veracity of his statement. No notarization is necessary.

In the instant administrative proceeding, the notice of liability was supported by the requisite affirmation. The video images authenticated by the technician show petitioner’s car running a red light. This constitutes, as per the statute, “prima facie evidence” of the traffic violation (Vehicle and Traffic Law §1111-a[d]). Matter of Monroe St. v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 00972, First Dept 2-15-22

 

, , ,

THE SO-CALLED TWO-HOUR RULE, REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR A DWI BREATH TEST BE MADE AND THE REFUSAL WARNINGS BE GIVEN WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ARREST, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION HEARINGS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV); THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO TAKE THE BREATH TEST AND WAS GIVEN THE REFUSAL WARNINGS THREE HOURS AFTER ARREST DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DMV FROM CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S TEST REFUSAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFore, over a dissenting opinion, determined the so-called two-hour rule does not apply to a driver’s license revocation administrative hearing after a DWI arrest. Within two hours of arrest the police can warn the driver that a refusal to submit to the blood-alcohol breath test is admissible at trial. If the request to submit to the test is made and the refusal warnings are given more than two hours after arrest, however, the refusal is not admissible at trial. Here the petitioner refused the DWI breath test three hours after arrest, after the refusal warnings were given. He argued the two-hour rule should apply and the refusal should not be considered at the Department of Motor Vehicle’s (DMV’s) administrative license revocation hearing:

Petitioner’s reliance on the statutory interpretation analysis in People v Odum [31 NY3d 344] as support for a motorist’s substantive right to refuse a chemical test without consequence is misplaced. Odum addressed the admissibility at trial of the results of a chemical test administered more than two hours after the defendant’s arrest, and whether the refusal warnings, including the inaccurate warning regarding the use of any refusal at a criminal trial, as given to him rendered his consent to the test involuntary. We emphasized that the 1973 statute authorizing the admissibility of evidence of a test refusal at a criminal trial was in derogation of common law and concluded as a result that the statutory provision authorizing such admission—Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (2) (f)—had to be strictly construed to include the two-hour rule … . In stark contrast, the limitation on the scope of the revocation hearing in section 1194 (2) (c) is not in derogation of the common law and is a subsequently enacted provision that specifically governs the issues that may be considered at an administrative hearing … . Matter of Endara-Caicedo v Vehicles, 2022 NY Slip Op 00959, CtApp 2-15-22

 

, ,

“REFUSING A BREATH TEST” IS NOT A COGNIZABLE OFFENSE; A CONVICTION IS THEREFORE A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED ON APPEAL EVEN IF THE ISSUE IS NOT BRIEFED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of “refusing a breath test,” explained that it is not a cognizable offense. The court noted that it was obligated to correct this fundamental error which cannot be waived, even though the issue was not briefed on appeal:

… [T]he purported traffic infraction to which defendant pleaded guilty under count two of the indictment—refusing the breath test mandated by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (1) (b)—is not a cognizable offense for which a person may be charged or convicted in a criminal court … . People v Adams, 2022 NY Slip Op 00562, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

Same issue in People v Harris, 2022 NY Slip Op 00568, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

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