You are here: / Vehicle and Traffic Law
,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW IN MAKING A LEFT TURN, THE OFFICER REASONABLY BELIEVED THERE WAS A VIOLATION; THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS JUSTIFIED AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined: (1) the left turn made by the defendant from the right-most lane did not violate Vehicle and Traffic Law 1160; and (2) the officer who stopped the defendant reasonably believed the turn was a traffic violation. Therefore the traffic stop was justified:

Unlike the language used in other subsections of section 1160, the language of subsection (b) does not specify how close to the center line a vehicle must be when it completes its turn, nor does it designate a specific lane within which the vehicle must complete the turn (compare § 1160 [b] with § 1160 [a], [c], [e]). In light of the more specific language employed elsewhere in the statute, we read the use of the more general phrase “right of the center line” as meaningful and intentional … . Indeed, reading “right of the center line” to mean the lane to the immediate right of the center line, or as close to center as possible, would improperly render the more specific language used elsewhere in the statute superfluous … . …

… [S]uppression [of the seized weapon] is not required here because the stop was the result of the officer’s objectively reasonable belief that he observed a traffic violation … . In light of ” the reality that an officer may suddenly confront a situation in the field as to which the application of a statute is unclear—however clear it may later become[,]’ ” an officer’s misreading of a statute that is susceptible of multiple interpretations and has not been definitively construed by New York appellate courts may amount to a reasonable mistake of law justifying a traffic stop … . Notwithstanding our interpretation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 (b) above, the “right of the center line” language is, in our view, susceptible of multiple interpretations, including the interpretation taken by the officer here, and the ambiguity has not previously been definitively construed. People v Turner, 2019 NY Slip Op 07190, Fourth Dept 10-3-19

 

, ,

NO EVIDENCE THE FATAL ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY DRIVING TOO FAST FOR THE CONDITIONS; PETITIONER WAS TRAVELLING BELOW THE SPEED LIMIT WHEN HIS CAR STRUCK A POTHOLE, CAUSING A MECHANICAL FAILURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the NYS Department of Motor Vehicles Administrative Appeals Board, annulled the finding that petitioner was speeding and the suspension of his driver’s license. Petitioner was traveling below the speed limit when his car struck a pothole causing a mechanical failure which resulted in a fatal accident. The Administrative Law Judge had determined petition was driving too fast for the conditions, meaning too fast for a road with potholes:

“To annul an administrative determination made after a hearing directed by law at which evidence is taken, a court must conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination” … . Here, the determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(a) is not supported by substantial evidence. There is no evidence to support the determination that the petitioner operated his vehicle at a speed greater than reasonable and prudent under the circumstances. There was no evidence to show that the petitioner’s speed contributed to the accident or that the vehicle would not have been damaged by the pothole had the petitioner been traveling at a lesser rate of speed … . Matter of Pepe v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 2019 NY Slip Op 06397, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

, ,

COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ITS ACTION FOR SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AFTER A DWI CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE COUNTY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY CODE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county’s motion for summary judgment in its action to seize defendant’s vehicle pursuant to the Nassau County Administrative Code after a DWI conviction (Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192) should not have been granted. The county did not comply with the notice requirements of the code:

…. [T]he complaint, as amplified by the plaintiff’s submissions establishing that the defendant pleaded guilty to a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, stated a cause of action for civil forfeiture of the vehicle pursuant to Nassau County Administrative Code § 8-7.0(g)(4) … . Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s denial of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her. However, in opposition to the plaintiff’s showing of its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact by adducing evidence demonstrating that, while she was given a copy of the notice of seizure in person, the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirement of Nassau County Administrative Code § 8-7.0(g)(4)(a) that she also be served with the notice of seizure by certified mail, return receipt requested … . Accordingly, the court should have denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment awarding civil forfeiture of the vehicle. County of Nassau v Urban, 2019 NY Slip Op 05762, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

,

CONVICTIONS OF INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF AGGRAVATED UNLICENSED OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE FIRST DEGREE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined vacated defendant’s conviction of two inclusory concurrent counts of the court alleging aggravated operation of a operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree:

… [T]he counts alleging driving while intoxicated as a felony in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3) and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree were inclusory concurrent counts of the count alleging aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (see CPL 300.30[4]; 300.40[3][b]; Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 511[2][a][ii]; [3][a][i]; 1192). Accordingly, the defendant’s convictions of driving while intoxicated as a felony in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3), and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree and the sentences imposed thereon must be vacated, and those counts of the indictment dismissed. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s contention that the mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fee must be reduced is more appropriately raised before the Supreme Court and, accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to consider this issue … . People v Delcid, 2019 NY Slip Op 05788, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT HAPPENED FOUND INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, DISSENT ARGUED THE TESTIMONY RAISED CLASSIC QUESTIONS OF FACT FOR THE JURY TO DETERMINE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case was properly granted. The majority argued plaintiff’s testimony was incredible and therefore was properly disregarded. The dissent argued plaintiff’s testimony raised classic questions of fact about how the accident happened. The collision occurred when plaintiff was attempting to change lanes. The majority interpreted plaintiff’s testimony to mean that she was straddling two lanes and was not moving when the truck struck her SUV, which, based on photographic evidence, the majority found incredible as a matter of law:

The photographic evidence shows that plaintiff’s SUV struck the rear of defendants’ tractor-trailer as plaintiff was attempting to merge into defendants’ truck’s lane of traffic. Thus, plaintiff violated her “duty not to enter a lane of moving traffic until it was safe to do so” (… see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128[a] …), “and [her] failure to heed this duty constitutes negligence per se”. * * ^

… [I]n summary judgment analysis, we must discount the plaintiff’s testimony where the plaintiff has “relied solely on [her] own testimony, uncorroborated by any other witnesses or evidence,” and her testimony belied “common sense” … . As these circumstances are presented in this case, plaintiff’s testimony was properly “disregarded as being without evidentiary value” … . Thus, plaintiff’s testimony raised no triable issues of fact. Castro v Hatim, 2019 NY Slip Op 05639, First Dept 7-16-19

 

, ,

NO SHOWING THAT THE AMBULANCE SIREN OR EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE IN USE WHEN THE INTERSECTION COLLISION OCCURRED, THEREFORE THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES APPLIED, THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipal defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this ambulance traffic accident case should have been denied. The municipal defendants did not demonstrate that the reckless disregard standard for emergency vehicles applied because they did not present evidence the ambulance siren or emergency lights were in use:

… [W]hile the reckless disregard standard of care in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e) applies to a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation, who engages in specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), the exemptions apply only when the authorized emergency vehicle sounded audible signals such as a siren and displayed at least one red light (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[c]). Here, the municipal defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under the reckless disregard standard of care, as they did not demonstrate that the siren and lights on the ambulance were activated as required for the exemptions set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b) to apply … . Wynter v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04993, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

, , ,

THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY WHEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, THE OFFICER TOOK PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES AND THEREFORE HIS CONDUCT DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined “reckless disregard” standard for the operation of a police car in an emergency situation applied to the facts, and further found that the officer’s conduct did not rise to the level of “reckless disregard:”

We agree with defendants that the court erred in determining that the defendant officer’s conduct was not measured by the “reckless disregard” standard of care under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) … . That standard of care “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)” …  and, if applicable, the driver is “shielded from liability unless [he or she] is shown to have acted with reckless disregard’ of the safety of others” … . Here, there is no dispute that the defendant officer was operating an “authorized emergency vehicle” and was “involved in an emergency operation” at the time of the accident (§ 1104 [a]). Furthermore, defendants’ submissions in support of their motion established as a matter of law that the defendant officer was performing exempted conduct when he “proceed[ed] past a steady red signal . . . , but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation” … . …

Here, the defendant officer’s uncontroverted testimony established that he was responding to a disturbance call that was “[p]riority 1,” i.e., the highest priority level, and that he took several precautions before proceeding into the intersection against the red light. Specifically, he slowed his vehicle to an almost complete stop, looked to his right and left, and then slowly proceeded into the intersection at a speed of about five miles per hour. When plaintiffs’ vehicle came into the defendant officer’s peripheral vision, he “slammed” his brake and attempted to avoid colliding with plaintiffs’ vehicle. Where, as here, a defendant officer takes precautionary measures before engaging in exempted conduct under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (b), the police officer does not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others … . Levere v City of Syracuse, 2019 NY Slip Op 04613, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

, ,

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

 

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