You are here: / Vehicle and Traffic Law
,

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

 

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS STANDARD APPLIED IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-POLICE CAR ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the reckless standard applied in this pedestrian-police car traffic accident case. The court noted that the governmental function immunity doctrine does not apply to this scenario:

The governmental function immunity doctrine does not apply in this case where plaintiff pedestrian was injured when she was struck by a police vehicle that was allegedly pursuing a vehicle that had committed a traffic infraction … . Instead, where a plaintiff alleges that a municipality and/or its employees were negligent in the ownership or operation of an authorized emergency vehicle while engaged in one of the activities protected by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), the “reckless disregard” standard set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e) applies … .

Here, a factual issue exists as to whether defendants were engaged in a protected activity under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), namely, proceeding past a steady red signal (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[b][2]), while pursuing a vehicle for a traffic violation so as to apply the reckless standard of care as opposed to ordinary negligence principles … . Santana v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 01348, First Dept 2-26-19

 

, ,

SNOWPLOW DRIVER WAS EXEMPT FROM STANDARD NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT ACT RECKLESSLY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, COURT OF CLAIMS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the snowplow driver was not liable in this traffic accident case. The highway-work exemption from standard negligence applied and the driver was not reckless:

There is little dispute that the Court of Claims erred in applying Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, which affords certain privileges to “[t]he driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when involved in an emergency operation” … and has no applicability to a vehicle such as a snowplow put to its intended use . The pertinent statute is instead Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), which “exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles . . . which are ‘actually engaged …  in work on a highway,’ and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care” … . Inasmuch as “the snowplow [here] was clearing the road during a snowstorm” when the accident occurred, both the snowplow and its driver are exempted “from the rules of the road” … . As such, liability will only attach if defendant and its employees behaved in a reckless manner, meaning a “conscious disregard of ‘a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow'” … . Howell v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 01281, Third Dept 2-21-19

 

​

, , ,

PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER ON A MOTORCYCLE, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE VAN DRIVER AND THE EMPLOYER OF THE VAN DRIVER WHO MADE A LEFT TURN INTO THE MOTORCYCLE’S PATH, THE GRAVES AMENDMENT MAY APPLY TO THE LESSOR OF THE VAN, PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE SERIOUS INJURY AS SHE WAS NOT A COVERED PERSON UNDER THE NO-FAULT INSURANCE LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department addressed several issues in this motorcycle-vehicle accident case. Plaintiff was a passenger on a motorcycle that collided with a van which attempted to make a left turn across the motorcycle’s path. The court held: (1) plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment against the van driver who violated Vehicle and Traffic Law 1146 and 1126 in making the turn; (2) the van driver’s employer was vicariously liable because the driver was operating the van during the course of his employment, the employer leased the van for more than 30 days and therefore was the owner of the van under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388; (3) the Graves Amendment may insulate the lessor of the van from liability; (4) plaintiff was not a covered person under the no fault provisions of the Insurance Law and therefore did not have to demonstrate serious injury before bringing suit. Jung v Glover, 2019 NY Slip Op 01066, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

​

,

THE PARTY WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY ENTERING THE INTERSECTION WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DRIVER MAKING A LEFT TURN, ALLEGATIONS THE PARTY WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS SPEEDING DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE ACCIDENT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF SPEEDING WAS NOT INVOLVED (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined that the driver who had the right of way entering an intersection. Aly, was entitled to summary judgment against the driver, Varela, who made a left turn into Aly’s path. The deposition testimony that Aly was speeding did not raise an issue of fact because there was no evidence Aly could have avoided the accident if traveling at the speed limit. In an apparent reference to the emergency doctrine the court noted that Aly had only seconds to react and therefore could not be deemed comparatively negligent:

The moving [ALY] defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them by submitting, among other things, the deposition transcripts of the parties, as well as video surveillance footage of the accident, which demonstrated that the sole proximate cause of the accident was Varela’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 in making a left turn into the path of the oncoming Aly vehicle without yielding the right-of-way… . As the driver with the right-of-way, Aly was entitled to anticipate that Varela would obey the traffic laws which required him to yield … . ” Although a driver with a right-of-way also has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid a collision, . . . a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision'” … . Here, the moving defendants established that Aly had only seconds to react to the Varela vehicle, which failed to yield.

In opposition, the plaintiffs and the Varela defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any negligence on the part of Aly was a substantial factor in the happening of the accident. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs’ respective deposition testimony that Aly was speeding is “inconsequential inasmuch as the [plaintiffs] did not raise a triable issue as to whether [Aly] could have avoided the accident even if she had been traveling at or below the posted speed limit” … . Rohn v Aly, 2018 NY Slip Op 08966, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

,

A SENTENCING COURT MAY REQUIRE A DEFENDANT, AS A CONDITION OF PROBATION, TO PAY FOR ELECTRONIC MONITORING, IF A DEFENDANT CLAIMS AN INABILITY TO PAY, A HEARING MUST BE HELD TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE TO INCARCERATION IS APPROPRIATE AND, IF NOT, THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SENTENCED TO PRISON (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, over a dissenting opinion, determined that the sentencing court, as a condition of probation, may require a defendant to pay for a Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring (SCRAM) bracelet. Defendant, who had pled guilty to felony driving while intoxicated, made several monthly payments for the bracelet but then stopped paying and the monitoring company removed the bracelet. County Court then sentenced defendant to prison. The 3rd Department held that the sentence was illegal because the court cannot require a defendant to pay the cost of electronic monitoring:

Were we to hold that any monetary component of a condition that must be borne by a defendant per se invalidated said condition, sentencing courts would be divested of their broad authority to impose a myriad of probationary requirements, and consequently, would, in many instances, no longer view release into the community as a viable alternative to incarceration. In light of this, the requirement that defendant wear and pay for a SCRAM bracelet was well within County Court’s statutory authority under Penal Law § 65.10 (4).

This is not to say that requiring a defendant to wear and pay for an electronic monitoring device will always be reasonable. Courts cannot impose a condition of probation that includes costs a particular defendant cannot feasibly meet. Nor can courts incarcerate a defendant who has initially agreed to meet a condition requiring a payment, but who subsequently becomes unable to do so. * * *

… [I]f, at the imposition of the sentence or during the course of probation, a defendant asserts that they are unable to meet the financial obligations attendant to a certain condition, the sentencing court must hold a hearing on the matter … . The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard in person, present witnesses, and offer documentary evidence establishing that they made sufficient bona fide efforts to pay … . If, after such inquiry, the sentencing court determines that the defendant has adequately demonstrated an inability to pay the costs associated with a particular condition despite bona fide efforts to do so, the court must attempt to fashion a reasonable alternative to incarceration … . Conversely, if the sentencing court determines, by a preponderance of the evidence … , that “a probationer has willfully refused to pay . . . when [that defendant] can pay, the [court] is justified in revoking probation and using imprisonment as an appropriate penalty for the offense” … . People v Hakes, 2018 NY Slip Op 08538, CtApp 12-13-18

 

, , , ,

THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE CREATED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CAN BE REBUTTED BY PROOF OF DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISCOVER THE INSURER’S FILE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that evidence that defendant exercised dominion of control of the vehicle would rebut the presumption of ownership created by a certificate of title. Here the tile was in defendant’s wife’s name and she was driving at the time of the traffic accident. Plaintiff sought to discover the insurer’s file pursuant to CPLR 3124. Supreme Court should have granted the motion:

“A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of ownership” (… Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 128, 2101[g]; 2108[c]…) . However, this presumption may be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that another individual owns the subject vehicle… . This may include evidence that a person other than the title holder exercised “dominion and control” over the vehicle …  .

Here, documents from the insurer concerning the vehicle and the accident are material and relevant to the issue of whether the defendant exercised dominion and control over the vehicle … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to provide an executed authorization for documents in the insurer’s possession concerning the vehicle and the accident … . ​Portillo v Carlson, 2018 NY Slip Op 08520, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

,

DEALERSHIP HAD NOT TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF AS THE OWNER, THE DRIVER STRUCK A BARRICADE WHICH IN TURN STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant car dealership (Port Motors) had not transferred ownership of the car to the purchaser (Love) at the time of the accident and was therefore liable to plaintiff as the owner of the vehicle. Plaintiff was injured when the driver (Lemos) struck a barricade which in turn struck plaintiff, who was walking on the sidewalk:

Because Port Motors “fail[ed] to comply with the statutory requirements regarding vehicle registration procedures . . . [it] is estopped from denying ownership of the vehicle and is fully liable to the plaintiff as if it were the owner’ of the vehicle” … . Although this Court has held that “title to a motor vehicle is transferred when the parties intend such transfer to occur” … , here, there is no evidence that the parties intended to transfer title to the vehicle from Port Motors to Love prior to the accident. …

The metal barricade standing in the roadway was not “a sudden and unexpected circumstance which le[ft] little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or cause[d] [Lemos] to be reasonably so disturbed that [he] [had to] make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct . . . “… . Rather, by colliding with the barricade and propelling it onto the sidewalk, where it struck a pedestrian, Lemos failed to both operate his vehicle in a manner that was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances  … and to see what was there to be seen through the ordinary use of his senses … . Bunn v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07936, First Dept 11-20-18

NEGLIGENCE (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, DEALERSHIP HAD NOT TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF AS THE OWNER, THE DRIVER STRUCK A BARRICADE WHICH IN TURN STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (OWNER LIABILITY, DEALERSHIP HAD NOT TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF AS THE OWNER, THE DRIVER STRUCK A BARRICADE WHICH IN TURN STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, DEALERSHIP HAD NOT TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF AS THE OWNER, THE DRIVER STRUCK A BARRICADE WHICH IN TURN STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS  (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, DEALERSHIP HAD NOT TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF AS THE OWNER, THE DRIVER STRUCK A BARRICADE WHICH IN TURN STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SAW WHAT WAS TO BE SEEN IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Curran, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant driver’s motion for summary judgment in this bicycle-car collision case should not have been granted. Apparently plaintiff was riding on the sidewalk and ran into the side of defendant’s car at an intersection. The majority concluded there was a question of fact whether defendant saw what he should have seen. The dissent relied on the right of way provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law:

Plaintiff [contended] that the provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1234 (a) are inapplicable because plaintiff was riding his bicycle on a sidewalk and not a roadway, as contemplated by that section. Plaintiff further contended that issues of fact exist regarding whether defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1142 and 1172 by failing to stop at the stop sign and failing to yield the right-of-way to plaintiff, and whether defendant failed to “see what [was] there to be seen.” …

Defendant, as the movant for summary judgment, had the burden of establishing as a matter of law that he was not negligent or that, even if he was negligent, his negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident … . To meet that burden, defendant was required to establish that he fulfilled his “common-law duty to see that which he should have seen [as a driver] through the proper use of his senses” … , “and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident” … , including that he met the obligation “to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for bicyclists” .. . Defendant also had the burden of establishing as a matter of law that there was nothing he could do to avoid the accident … . Pagels v Mullen, 2018 NY Slip Op 07855, Fourth Dept 11-16-18

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SAW WHAT WAS TO BE SEEN IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SAW WHAT WAS TO BE SEEN IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SAW WHAT WAS TO BE SEEN IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/BICYCLES (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SAW WHAT WAS TO BE SEEN IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SNOWPLOW TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SNOWPLOW OPERATOR’S ACTIONS ROSE TO THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant town’s motion for summary judgment in this snowplow traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendant alleged the plow blade was in his lane, but there was evidence the road markings were covered with snow:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) “exempts all vehicles actually engaged in work on a highway’—including [snowplows]—from the rules of the road” … . Here, defendants established as a matter of law that the snowplow was “actually engaged in work on a highway” at the time of the incident… , and plaintiff’s evidence that the plow blade was up at the time of the accident did not raise a triable issue of fact with respect thereto inasmuch as plaintiff did not dispute that Farr [the snowplow driver] was “working his run or beat at the time of the accident” … . …

At most, plaintiff established that Farr did not see plaintiff’s vehicle and that a portion of the snowplow crossed the center line of the road, which does not amount to recklessness. Moreover, plaintiff failed to submit competent evidence that Farr’s operation of the snowplow without either a “wing man” or certification to operate the snowplow without a wing man was reckless. Finally, while plaintiff and Farr provided different versions of the accident, those differences alone do not create a question of fact on the issue of reckless disregard here … . Clark v Town of Lyonsdale, 2018 NY Slip Op 07870. Fourth Dept 11-16-18

NEGLIGENCE (TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SNOWPLOW TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SNOWPLOW OPERATOR’S ACTIONS ROSE TO THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SNOWPLOWS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SNOWPLOW TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SNOWPLOW OPERATOR’S ACTIONS ROSE TO THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/SNOWPLOWS (MUNICIPAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SNOWPLOW TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SNOWPLOW OPERATOR’S ACTIONS ROSE TO THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, SNOWPLOWS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SNOWPLOW TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SNOWPLOW OPERATOR’S ACTIONS ROSE TO THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, SNOWPLOWS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SNOWPLOW TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SNOWPLOW OPERATOR’S ACTIONS ROSE TO THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT))

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