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

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

 

, , ,

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

 

​

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