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

ALTHOUGH AN ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THE GRASSY STRIP BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE CURB, HERE THE PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION; IN ADDITION, THE VILLAGE CODE DID NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON PROPERTY OWNERS, AN ISSUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should have been granted. Although, pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law, defendant can be responsible for a dangerous condition in the grassy strip between the sidewalk and a curb, here defendant demonstrated he did not create the condition and the village code did not impose tort liability on abutting property owners. Although the “village code” issue was not raised below, it was a purely legal issue that can be considered on appeal:

The grass strip situated between a sidewalk and a roadway is part of the sidewalk (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 144; Code of the Village of Westbury [hereinafter Village Code] § 215-2 … ). “‘An abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk only when the owner either created the condition or caused the defect to occur because of a special use, or when a statute or ordinance places an obligation to maintain the sidewalk on the owner and expressly makes the owner liable for injuries caused by a breach of that duty'” … .

Here, the defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him by demonstrating that he did not create the alleged dangerous condition or cause that condition through a special use of the sidewalk … . In addition, while Village Code § 215-12 imposes a duty on owners and occupants of abutting land to keep sidewalks free of obstructions, the Village Code does not specifically impose tort liability for breach of that duty … . Although the defendant did not make an argument based on the provisions of the Village Code in support of his motion before the Supreme Court, his argument in this regard is reviewable on appeal because it is a purely legal argument that appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided had it been raised at the proper juncture … . Lamorte v Iadevaia, 2021 NY Slip Op 04126, Second Dept 6-30-21

 

, ,

IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVING A FIRE TRUCK DRIVEN BY A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER, THE FIRE DISTRICT CAN BE HELD TO A NEGLIGENCE, AS OPPOSED TO A RECKLESS DISREGARD, STANDARD PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-B (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the defendant volunteer fire district could be held liable for a traffic accident under a negligence, as opposed to reckless disregard, standard, pursuant General Municipal Law 205-b. The dissent argued the reckless disregard standard applies because General Municipal Law 205-b does not specify a particular standard of care:

Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-b, “fire districts created pursuant to law shall be liable for the negligence of volunteer firefighters duly appointed to serve therein in the operation of vehicles owned by the fire district upon the public streets and highways of the fire district, provided such volunteer firefighters, at the time of any accident or injury, were acting in the discharge of their duties.” Thus, contrary to the Fire District’s contention, it was not limited to liability for conduct rising to the level of “reckless disregard” under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e), and could be held liable for the ordinary negligence of a volunteer firefighter operating the Fire District’s vehicle … . Anderson v Commack Fire Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 03821, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

, ,

THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TPVA) IS A CRIMINAL COURT WHICH CANNOT ISSUE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WHEN A DEFENDANT FAILS TO APPEAR FOR A TRAFFIC-INFRACTION TRIAL; IN CONTRAST, A TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TVB) IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, NOT A CRIMINAL COURT, AND MAY ISSUE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Bureau (TPVA) is a criminal court which cannot issue a default judgment when a defendant who has pled not guilty does not show up for a traffic-infraction trial. On the other hand, a Traffic Violations Bureau (TVA) is not a criminal court and may issue a default judgment:

Defendants in these cases were prosecuted in district court … . Each defendant timely appeared before the TPVA, pleaded not guilty, and requested a trial. They were each given a document indicating the date and time of the trial with a warning of the repercussions for failure to appear: “THE COURT MAY ISSUE A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST OR PROCEED IN YOUR ABSENCE AND YOU WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY SENTENCE AND/OR FEES IMPOSED, INCLUDING INCARCERATION, AND other penalties permitted by law.” Despite the warning notice, defendants failed to timely appear on their respective trial dates. No attempt was made by the People to try defendants in absentia. Rather, a judicial hearing officer of the TPVA rendered default judgments against them and imposed fines. …

The issue before us is whether a TPVA judicial hearing officer is authorized under the Vehicle and Traffic Law to render a default judgment against a defendant charged with a traffic infraction who first enters a timely not guilty plea but then fails to appear for trial. We answer that question in the negative. …

Unlike TPVAs, … the TVB is not a criminal court … . It is … an administrative tribunal where, in cities having a population of one million or more, traffic infractions may be disposed of in an administrative hearing held before a hearing officer appointed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles … . In contrast to trials conducted before TPVAs, hearings before the TVB are not governed by the CPL … . People v Iverson, 2021 NY Slip Op 03347, CtApp 5-27-21

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT DID NOT STOP FOR A RED LIGHT AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR AS PLAINTIFF WAS PASSING THROUGH THE INTERSECTION; FAILING TO STOP FOR A RED LIGHT VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND CONSTITUTES NEGLIGENCE PER SE; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence that defendant Glennon ran a red light and struck plaintiff’s car as plaintiff was passing through the intersection warranted summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor. Running a red light is a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law which constitutes negligence per se:

“[A] violation of a standard of care imposed by the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se” … . Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(d)(1), a driver when “facing a steady circular red signal, . . . shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, then shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or in the event there is no crosswalk, at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of the approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection.” …

[Steedman, a witness, testified the] first two vehicles passed through the intersection without incident, but then the plaintiff, who was driving the third vehicle, was struck by Glennon’s vehicle. Steedman … testified that he observed Glennon looking down into her lap at the time of the accident. Thus, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that Glennon entered the subject intersection against a red light, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(d)(1) … . Callahan v Glennon, 2021 NY Slip Op 02509, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE POLICE OFFICER WHO COLLIDED WITH HER CAR WAS ENGAGED IN AN EMERGENCY OPERATION AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; THEREFORE THE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether defendant police officer, Breen, was in fact involved in an emergency operation at the time she collided with the car in which plaintiff was a passenger. Therefore there was a question of fact whether the ordinary negligence principles, as opposed the reckless disregard standard, applied:

“[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, the defendants established, prima facie, that a negligence standard of care was inapplicable to Breen’s conduct, through the submission of evidence establishing that Breen was responding to another officer in need of assistance when she entered the intersection against a red traffic light and collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle … . In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether Breen was in fact responding to the other officer’s call at the time of the accident and, therefore, whether the negligence standard should apply … . Modica v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 02287, Second Dept 4-14-21

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE WERE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE WHETHER THE CHEMICAL BREATH TEST SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED; NEW SUPPRESSION HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, on an appeal by the People, determined County Court should not have suppressed the chemical breath test evidence in this DWI case because the People were not given an opportunity to respond to that suppression issue. The matter was remitted for a new suppression hearing:

… [T]he court erred in granting that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to suppress evidence because the court failed to notify the People of its intention to consider that issue and failed to give the People an opportunity to present evidence at the hearing on that issue … . At the Huntley hearing, the issues of the officer’s compliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 and defendant’s limited right to counsel were merely ancillary. Moreover, we reject defendant’s contention that the limited evidence that was admitted at the hearing supports the court’s determination to suppress the chemical breath test results. The evidence at the hearing established that the police administered a field breath test and then a chemical breath test at the jail, only the latter of which is the subject of section 1194 (2) (a) and would be admissible at trial … , but the court conflated the administration of both tests in determining that suppression was warranted. On this record, it is unclear whether the officer complied with section 1194 (2) (b) by warning defendant of the consequences of refusal in ” ‘clear and unequivocal language’ ” before administering the chemical test … . The record is also unclear whether defendant, who made a request to speak with his attorney, was afforded the opportunity to do so prior to deciding whether to submit to the chemical breath test … . People v Williams, 2021 NY Slip Op 01570, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY DRUGS, NOT ALCOHOL; DIRECTION TO INSTALL AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE APPLIES ONLY TO OFFENSES INVOLVING ALCOHOL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined the offense to which defendant pled guilty did not involve alcohol and, therefore, the direction to install an ignition interlock device must be vacated:

… [T]he County Court improperly imposed an ignition interlock device requirement upon the defendant. The defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2-a)(b) for “[d]riving while ability impaired by drugs” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[4]). A court may impose an ignition interlock device as a condition of probation and conditional discharge only for offenses involving alcohol (see Penal Law § 65.10[2][k-1]). The defendant’s conviction here falls outside the scope of the statute authorizing the imposition of such a condition … . People v Miller, 2021 NY Slip Op 00868, Second Dept 2-10-21

 

, ,

THE SNOWPLOW DRIVER DID NOT VIOLATE THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the reckless disregard standard applied in this traffic accident case involving a municipal snowplow:

“A snowplow operator ‘actually engaged in work on a highway’ is exempt from the rules of the road and may be held liable only for damages caused by an act done in ‘reckless disregard for the safety of others'” … . Reckless disregard requires more than a momentary lapse in judgment … . “This requires a showing that the operator acted in conscious disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow” … .

Oviedo-Mejia [the snowplow driver] testified that he was traveling in reverse at a speed of five to seven miles per hour with the lights and beeping alert of the snowplow vehicle activated. Oviedo-Mejia testified that he kept looking in the mirrors as the snowplow vehicle was moving in reverse, but he did not see the plaintiff prior to the alleged impact. Under the circumstances, the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that Oviedo-Mejia did not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others … . Kaffash v Village of Great Neck Estates, 2021 NY Slip Op 00159, Second Dept 1-13-21

 

, ,

AN ALLEGED CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS NOT IN PLAIN VIEW IN THE VEHICLE; THEREFORE THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A CLOSED CONTAINER IN THE VEHICLE, WHICH REVEALED A WEAPON, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED; WEAPONS CHARGES DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, dismissing the weapons charges, determined the search of defendant’s vehicle was not justified. The officer (Chowdhury) saw the top of a prescription bottle, pulled the bottle out of a pouch, determined it contained a controlled substance, a searched a closed container to find the weapon:

Chowdhury observed “two clear cups of brown liquid, alcohol” in the cup holders in the vehicle’s front console and smelled an odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle. Chowdhury asked the defendant and an individual in the front passenger seat to exit the vehicle, and they complied. Chowdhury further testified that the rear passenger side door was open and that, with the aid of a flashlight, he observed the “white top” of a prescription bottle sticking out of the pouch on the back of the front passenger seat. Chowdhury then entered the vehicle, pulled the bottle out, and observed that it was clear, with no prescription label, and had unlabeled white pills inside that Chowdhury and [officer] Carrieri identified as Oxycodone. Carrieri then began searching the vehicle for any weapons or other contraband and found a handgun inside of a closed compartment under the rug behind the driver’s seat. The defendant was arrested, and later made a statement to the police regarding the gun. …

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun and his statement. The officers’ observations of the brown liquid in the cups in the front console and the smell emanating from the vehicle gave them probable cause to suspect a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1227, which prohibits the possession of open containers containing alcohol in a vehicle located upon a public highway, and would have justified their entry into the vehicle to seize the cups of liquid and search for additional open containers … . However, since there was nothing from Officer Chowdhury’s observation of the top of the prescription bottle located in the seat pocket that indicated that the bottle contained contraband, there was no justification for his removal of the bottle and detailed inspection of it and its contents or for the subsequent search of the car for weapons or other contraband. Chowdhury testified that it was only after he pulled the bottle out of the pouch and pulled upward on the top of it that he was able to see that it was unlabeled and contained what he identified as Oxycodone. Thus, contrary to the People’s contention, it cannot be said that a suspected controlled substance was in plain sight … . People v Boykin, 2020 NY Slip Op 07085, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

, ,

EVEN IF THE OFFICER WERE WRONG ABOUT WHETHER A NON-FUNCTIONING CENTER BRAKE LIGHT VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, THE OFFICER’S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW WAS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE; THEREFORE THE STOP WAS VALID AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Term, over a concurring memorandum, a concurring opinion, and two dissenting opinions, determined the police officer who stopped defendant reasonably believed the non-functioning center brake light violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Therefore the stop was valid and the DWI evidence should not have been suppressed. The Vehicle and Traffic Law requires at least two functioning brake lights. Here there were two functioning lights but the center brake light was not working:

We conclude that the officer’s interpretation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law was objectively reasonable. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (40) (b) mandates that motor vehicles manufactured after a certain date be “equipped with at least two stop lamps, one on each side, each of which shall display a red to amber light visible at least five hundred feet from the rear of the vehicle when the brake of such vehicle is applied.” Vehicle and Traffic Law § 376 (1) (a) prohibits, in relevant part, (1) operating a vehicle “during the period from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise, unless such vehicle is equipped with lamps of a type approved by the commissioner which are lighted and in good working condition”; and (2) operating a vehicle at any time “unless such vehicle is equipped with signaling devices and reflectors of a type approved by the commissioner which are in good working condition.” Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (19), in turn, prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle on highways or streets if the vehicle “is defectively equipped and lighted.” Taken together, these provisions could reasonably be read to require that all lamps and signaling devices be in good working condition, and that all equipment and lighting be non-defective, regardless of whether a vehicle is actually required to be equipped with those lamps, signaling devices, equipment, or lights. Even assuming the officer was in fact mistaken on the law, it was nevertheless objectively reasonable to conclude that defendant’s non-functioning center brake light violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law … . Because any error of law by the officer was reasonable, there was probable cause justifying the stop … . People v Pena, 2020 NY Slip Op 06836, CtApp 11-19-20

 

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