You are here: / Vehicle and Traffic Law
, ,

A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINALITY WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR A PAT SEARCH; HOWEVER THE SMELL OF MARIJUANA, ABOUT WHICH THE OFFICER TESTIFIED, WOULD JUSTIFY A SEARCH; BECAUSE THE SUPPRESSION COURT DID NOT RULE ON THE MARIJUANA-SMELL ISSUE, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined that, although the suppression court determined the police officer had a founded suspicion of criminality when he ordered defendant out of the car, a founded suspicion of criminality did not justify ordering the defendant to place his hands on the patrol car in preparation for a pat search. However. the officer testified he smelled marijuana, which would justify and search. Because the court did not rule on that issue, the matter was sent back for a ruling:

Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer observed that there were two occupants, one of whom, i.e., defendant, was moving around in the backseat and putting his hands in his front pocket as if he was “stuffing something either in his coat or in his pants as if to conceal it from [the officer].” … The officer asked the driver and defendant for identification and thereafter learned that the driver’s license of the driver had been revoked and that defendant did not have a driver’s license.

The officer directed defendant to exit the vehicle and place his hands on the patrol car so that the officer could conduct a pat search. Defendant exited the vehicle as directed but thereafter fled, discarding components of a 9 millimeter Glock semiautomatic pistol as he ran. …

Because the driver pulled over of his own volition before the officer activated his emergency lights to initiate a traffic stop, the officer needed only an articulable basis to lawfully approach the occupants of the vehicle and request information … . That basis was supplied by the officer’s observation that the vehicle was being operated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (2) (a) (1) … . Thus, the officer’s conduct “was justified in its inception” … .

The court determined that the officer had a founded suspicion of criminality prior to ordering defendant to exit the vehicle for the pat search. A founded suspicion of criminality standing alone, however, was insufficient to justify the officer’s conduct in ordering defendant to place his hands on the patrol car in preparation for a pat search … . Nevertheless, in making its determination, the court credited the officer’s testimony that he smelled fresh marihuana emanating from the vehicle and was experienced in detecting marihuana. It is well settled that “[t]he odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants”  … . People v Green, 2019 NY Slip Op 04608, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

, ,

MATTER SENT BACK FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE PEOPLE PRESENTED NEW EVIDENCE TO THE SECOND GRAND JURY AFTER A ‘NO BILL,’ THE PEOPLE WERE GRANTED PERMISSION TO RE-PRESENT ON THE GROUND THAT NEW EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department sent the case back for a ruling on a portion of defendant’s omnibus motions. The grand jury had returned a “no bill” on the leaving the scene of a serious injury accident. The People sought to re-present the charges to a new grand jury alleging that a witness who had given false testimony had agreed to testify truthfully. Defendant, in her omnibus motion, asked to court to compare the testimony given to both grand juries to see if new evidence was actually presented at the second grand jury:

CPL 190.75 (3) provides that where, as here, charges have been dismissed by the grand jury, they “may not again be submitted to a grand jury unless the court in its discretion authorizes or directs the [P]eople to resubmit such charge[s] to the same or another grand jury.” “Leave may be granted only once, and the [People are] required to justify resubmission” … . “[T]here should not be a resubmission unless it appears, for example, that new evidence has been discovered since the former submission; that the [g]rand [j]ury failed to give the case a complete and impartial investigation; or that there is a basis for believing that the [g]rand [j]ury otherwise acted in an irregular manner” … . …

 … “[W]e cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on [that part of] the . . . motion as a denial thereof”… . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination whether the People, in fact, presented new evidence to the second grand jury and, if not, whether dismissal of the indictment is warranted on that ground … . People v Ballowe, 2019 NY Slip Op 04566, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

,

THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN THIS COMMON LAW DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CASE WERE SUFFICIENT TO ALLEGE DEFENDANT WAS THE OPERATOR OF THE VEHICLE, APPELLATE TERM REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Term, determined the “factual allegations in the accusatory instrument were sufficient to support the inference that defendant was the operator of the vehicle involved in the accident and, thus, Appellate Term erroneously dismissed the accusatory instrument on that ground.” The facts of the case were not described. The Appellate Term decision is: People v Esposito (Monique) 2018 NY Slip Op 28245 Decided on August 3, 2018 Appellate Term, 2nd Department. People v Esposito, 2019 NY Slip Op 04448, CtApp 6-6-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT DRIVER ATTEMPTED TO RAISE A FEIGNED FACTUAL ISSUE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY CONTRADICTING A STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT IN THE POLICE REPORT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendant driver (Karen) made a statement included in the police report indicating she did not see plaintiffs’ motorcycle before the accident. In response to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment defendant driver (Karen) averred that she came to a stop at the stop sign, pulled out into the intersection and then saw the motorcycle moving “extremely fast.” The Second Department held that defendant had raised a feigned factual issue. The court also noted that, although the motion for summary judgment was made before discovery was complete, defendants did not show that additional discovery would lead to relevant evidence:

In support of their motion, the plaintiffs submitted, among other things, affidavits from the injured plaintiff and a witness, Shahiem Smith, who observed the collision. According to those affidavits, Karen drove … into the intersection without yielding the right-of-way to the injured plaintiff’s motorcycle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a) and struck the motorcycle as it was lawfully proceeding through the intersection … . “A violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence as a matter of law” … . Moreover, the plaintiffs also submitted a copy of a police accident report which contained Karen’s statement that she did not see the injured plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability … . Kerolle v Nicholson, 2019 NY Slip Op 03959, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

,

INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF THE THE AGGRAVATED VEHICULAR HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department dismissed the inclusory concurrent counts of the aggravated vehicular homicide convictions:

As the People correctly concede, the defendant’s convictions of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.13[3], [4]), vehicular manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.12[1]), reckless driving (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212), and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[4]) must be vacated and those counts of the indictment must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of the convictions of aggravated vehicular homicide (see CPL 300.40[3][b]; Penal Law § 125.14[3], [4]…). People v Aniano, 2019 NY Slip Op 03797, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING THE EMPLOYER’S TRUCK WITH THE EMPLOYER’S PERMISSION AND WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s vicarious liability causes of action against the employer of the driver of a company truck which struck plaintiff’s car head-on properly survived summary judgment. The driver, Price, was intoxicated and was convicted of vehicular assault. The employer argued that, because of the company policy prohibiting employees from using drugs and alcohol, Price did not have permission to operate the truck within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law 388. The employer further argued Price was not acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. The court found there were questions of fact on both issues:

… [T]he requirement to drive sober relates more closely to the manner of operation, or how to drive, rather than a restriction on who may operate the vehicle and when and where they may do so … . As defendants did not establish, as a matter of law, that Price was driving without permission at the time of the accident, they were not entitled to summary judgment on the Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 claim … . …

Price testified that [his employer] gave him a vehicle to use for business purposes, including traveling from home to work, and at the time of the accident he was driving to a job site to begin work for the day. [The employer] arguably derived a benefit from Price’s ability to take the vehicle home because the truck contained a tool box for work tools, he used the truck to transport supplies to job sites from home improvement stores, the truck advertised the business by displaying the company name and logo, and he worked at construction job sites rather than a main office, so permitting him to take the vehicle home saved him from having to use work time to pick the company truck up and drop it off at a central location each day … . Based on this evidence, defendants failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment, as there was a factual question regarding whether Price was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident … . Williams v J. Luke Constr. Co., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 03431, Third Dept 5-2-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S SON WAS INJURED WHEN A UTILITY VEHICLE DRIVEN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS’ 14-YEAR-OLD SON OVERTURNED, THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS NOT BEING DRIVEN ON A PUBLIC ROAD, HOWEVER THE NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Vehicle and Traffic Law cause of action should have been dismissed, but the negligent entrustment cause of action properly survived summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ 16-year-old son was injured when defendants’ utility vehicle, driven on private property by defendants’ 14-year-old son, overturned:

We find merit in defendants’ claim that Supreme Court erroneously concluded that the utility vehicle is not excluded under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125. Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1), “[e]very owner of a vehicle used or operated in this state shall be liable and responsible for death or injuries to person or property resulting from negligence in the use or operation of such vehicle . . . by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of such owner.” For purposes of section 388, vehicle means a motor vehicle, which is defined as “[e]very vehicle operated or driven upon a public highway which is propelled by any power other than muscular power” … . A public highway is “[a]ny highway, road, street, avenue, alley, public place, public driveway or any other public way” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 134).

At the time of the incident, the utility vehicle was being operated on defendants’ private property — not a public highway … . Accordingly, we find that the utility vehicle was not a motor vehicle within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125 …, and it was error for Supreme Court to conclude otherwise. …

Supreme Court did not err in denying summary judgment on the negligent entrustment cause of action. “[A] parent owes a duty to protect third parties from harm that is clearly foreseeable from the child’s improvident use or operation of a dangerous instrument, where such use is found to be subject to the parent’s control” … . …

[The] submissions reveal that [defendant] O’Leary’s son was not always required to ask for permission to operate the utility vehicle and fail to show that O’Leary had knowledge of how his son, when out of his presence, operated the vehicle. This proof, together with the clear warnings in the operator’s manual, fails to support a determination as a matter of law that defendants could not have “clearly foreseen” that their 14-year-old son’s recreational use of the utility could have exposed others to injury … . Wright v O’Leary, 2019 NY Slip Op 03424, Third Dept 5-2-19

 

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1141 BY MAKING A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE, DEFENDANT AVERRED PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING TOO FAST, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case should not have been granted. Although plaintiff made out a prima facie case, alleging the defendant, without warning, made a left turn in front of him in violation of Vehicle and Traffic law 1141, defendant raised a question of fact about whether she violated the statute by averring plaintiff was driving too fast:

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, “[t]he driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection . . . shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard” … . A violation of this statute constitutes negligence per se … . …

The defendant driver averred that, as she approached the intersection, she slowed her vehicle, activated her left hand turn signal, and “looked to ensure that the roadway was clear.” As she was in the process of turning, she noticed the plaintiff’s vehicle for the first time and observed it traveling toward her at such an excessive rate of speed that she was unable to avoid the impact. The foregoing was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether, at the time the defendant driver initiated her turn, the plaintiff’s vehicle was “so close as to constitute an immediate hazard” … . Brodney v Picinic, 2019 NY Slip Op 03314, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

, , ,

POLICE OFFICER HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS TO PULL OVER PETITIONER’S CAR AFTER THE CAR CROSSED THE FOG LINE WITH A BLINKER ON AND THEN MOVED BACK INTO THE LANE, REVOCATION OF DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL TEST AFFIRMED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined the stop of defendant’s car was based upon reasonable grounds to believe petitioner had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law 1128. Therefore the revocation of petitioner’s license for refusing to submit to a chemical test was affirmed:

At the administrative hearing, testimony was elicited that, while on patrol at 1:00 AM on December 22, 2013, a police officer observed petitioner’s vehicle “make an erratic movement off the right side of the road, crossing the fog line and [moving] off the shoulder [with the vehicle’s] right front tire.” Once the vehicle left the paved roadway — and with the right-hand turn signal on — the officer saw the vehicle immediately move left, returning to its original lane of travel. After observing that there was no animal or other obstruction of the roadway that would have explained the “erratic jerking action,” the police officer pulled the vehicle over. During the stop, the officer noticed that petitioner smelled of alcohol and exhibited other signs of inebriation. Petitioner admitted that he “had a few drinks” and asked the officer to give him a ride home, failing field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test given at the scene. At the precinct, despite receiving the appropriate warnings, petitioner refused to take a chemical test, resulting in an administrative license revocation hearing. The police officer’s testimony at the hearing, articulating credible facts to support a reasonable belief that petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 (a) (failure to remain in lane), provided substantial evidence that he had probable cause to stop petitioner’s vehicle … . Any negative or adverse inference that was drawn from petitioner’s failure to testify at the administrative revocation hearing was permissible … . Matter of Schoonmaker v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2019 NY Slip Op 02259, CtApp 3-28-19

 

,

FAILURE TO PROVIDE SEATBELTS IN A TAXICAB VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND IS NEGLIGENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the failure to provide seatbelts in  taxicab violates the Vehicle and Traffic Law and constitutes negligence:

The failure to provide seatbelts in a taxicab is a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 383, and constitutes negligence as a matter of law … . Where an injured party fails to wear an available seatbelt, such failure would go to damages, not liability … . That is not the case when the vehicle owner fails to provide seatbelts in the first instance … . Grant v AAIJ African Mkt. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 01823, First Dept 3-14-19

 

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