You are here: / Vehicle and Traffic Law
,

Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Ambulance Driver Was Engaged in an Emergency Operation at the Time of the Accident, and If So, Whether the Ambulance Driver Was Reckless in Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104

The Second Department determined questions of fact existed about whether an ambulance driver (Stewart) was engaged in an emergency operation at the time of the accident and, if so, whether Stewart acted recklessly in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b defines emergency operation as: “[t]he operation . . . of an authorized emergency vehicle, when such vehicle is engaged in transporting a sick or injured person, pursuing an actual or suspected violator of the law, or responding to, or working or assisting at the scene of an accident, disaster, police call, alarm of fire, actual or potential release of hazardous materials or other emergency.” In the instant case, the plaintiff presented evidence that the radio call to which Stewart was responding was for the police to assist, and that Stewart sought to offer assistance in the form of “crowd control . . . until the police got there.” Under the circumstances presented here, we agree with the plaintiff that triable issue of fact is presented as to whether Stewart was operating the ambulance as part of an emergency operation as contemplated by the statute … .

We also find that the record presents factual issues as to whether Stewart’s conduct constituted reckless disregard. The “reckless disregard” standard requires proof that Stewart intentionally committed “an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow” … . In the instant matter, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a nonparty witness that raised triable issues of fact as to whether the ambulance slowed down prior to entering the intersection at which the collision occurred. Although Stewart claimed that she was traveling five miles per hour through the subject intersection, the witness averred in his affidavit that Stewart was driving at a high rate of speed, without ever slowing down, on the wrong side of the road through a steady red signal. “Resolving questions of credibility, determining the accuracy of witnesses, and reconciling the testimony of witnesses are for the trier of fact” … . Thus, triable issues of fact have been raised … . Torres v Saint Vincent’s Catholic Med Ctrs of NY, 2014 NY Slip Op 03256, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

, ,

Suit Against Town by Representatives of Ambulance Personnel Killed in an Accident Prohibited by Volunteer Ambulance Workers’ Benefit Law/Question of Fact Whether Ambulance Driver Was Reckless (in Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104)

The Second Department determined the town was protected against a suit by representatives of ambulance personnel killed when the ambulance was involved in an accident.  Volunteer Ambulance Workers’ Benefit Law section 19 provides an exclusive remedy (much like the Workers’ Compensation Law) and thereby precluded the lawsuit against the town.  The Second Department also determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the ambulance driver was reckless.  Therefore suit against the driver was not precluded by Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104 which imposes a “reckless disregard” standard for causes of action against the drivers of emergency vehicles.  It is worth noting that the question of fact under the “reckless disregard” standard was found to exist in spite of a Department of Motor Vehicles hearing which determined the ambulance driver did not act recklessly.  Ryan v Town of Riverhead, 2014 NY Slip Op 03250, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

, ,

Defendant’s Limited Right to Seek the Advice of an Attorney Before Consenting to a Breathalyzer Test Was Violated When the Sheriff’s Department Administered the Test Without First Telling Defendant an Attorney Had Communicated with the Sheriff’s Department on Her Behalf

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, over a dissent, determined defendant's breathalyzer test results were properly suppressed.  After her arrest for Driving While Intoxicated, the defendant did not ask to speak with an attorney and consented to the test.  However, her family communicated with an attorney who called before the breathalyzer test was administered and told the sheriff's department not to test or question the defendant.  The Court of Appeals determined the sheriff's department was obligated to inform the defendant about the attorney's communication before administering the test:

In People v Gursey (22 NY2d 224 [1968])… we recognized a limited right of the accused to seek legal assistance in alcohol-related driving cases. We held that, based on the warning procedure set forth in section 1194 (2) (b), “if a defendant arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol asks to contact an attorney before responding to a request to take a chemical test, the police 'may not, without justification, prevent access between the criminal accused and his lawyer, available in person or by immediate telephone communication'” … . Violation of this right to legal consultation generally requires suppression of the scientific evidence …. Because time is of the essence in obtaining accurate chemical test evidence …, we further observed in Gursey that a suspect's communication with a lawyer regarding “the exercise of legal rights should not [] extend so far as to palpably impair or nullify the statutory procedure requiring drivers to choose between taking the test or losing their licenses” … .

It is therefore well established that “there is no absolute right to refuse to take the test until an attorney is actually consulted, nor can a defendant use a request for legal consultation to significantly postpone testing” … . In other words, conferring with counsel is permissible only if “'such access does not interfere unduly'” with timely administration of the test … . * * *

In our view, the statutory right to legal consultation applies when an attorney contacts the police before a chemical test for alcohol is performed and the police must alert the subject to the presence of counsel, whether the contact is made in person or telephonically. Gursey contemplated that a lawyer retained to represent a DWI arrestee can directly communicate with the police, reasoning that “law enforcement officials may not, without justification, prevent access between the criminal accused and [the] lawyer, available in person or by immediate telephone communication, if such access does not interfere unduly” with the administration of alcohol test … . The fact that defendant consented to the breathalyzer about the same time that the attorney was communicating with the police is not dispositive since defendant, after conferring with counsel, could have revoked her consent prior to administration of the test (see generally Vehicle & Traffic Law §§ 1194 [2] [b], 1194-a [3] [c]). The police therefore must advise the accused that a lawyer has made contact on the accused's behalf … . Once so informed, the accused may choose to consult with counsel or forego that option and proceed with the chemical test. People v Washington, 2014 NY Slip Op 04190, CtApp 5-6-14

 

, , ,

Admissions In Hospital Records Which Contradicted Plaintiff’s Trial Testimony Properly Admitted/Seat Belt Defense Should Not Have Been Submitted to the Jury—Insufficient Foundation/”Missing Witness” Jury-Instruction Request Not Supported by a Showing the Testimony Would Be “Material” and “Noncumulative”

The Second Department determined the plaintiff’s admission, contained in the hospital records, that he was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision was properly admitted at trial.  Although the statement was not relevant to diagnosis or treatment, it was admissible because it contradicted plaintiff’s trial testimony (plaintiff testified he was wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident). However, Supreme Court should not have submitted the seat belt defense to the jury because there was no foundational testimony explaining precisely how wearing a seat belt would have minimized plaintiff’s injuries.  The Second Department also noted plaintiff’s request for a missing witness jury instruction was properly denied because there was no showing the witness would have provided material, noncumulative testimony:

A hearsay entry in a hospital record is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule only if the entry is germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient … . However, if the entry is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial, it is admissible as an admission by that party, even if it is not germane to diagnosis or treatment, as long as there is “evidence connecting the party to the entry” … . At trial, the plaintiff testified that he was using a seat belt at the time of the accident. The hospital records containing the challenged entries clearly indicated that the plaintiff was the source of the information contained therein … . Accordingly, the challenged entries were properly admitted into evidence.

Although the Supreme Court properly declined to redact the hospital record as requested by the plaintiff, the court nonetheless erred in submitting the seat belt defense to the jury, since the defendants failed to demonstrate, by competent evidence, that the plaintiff’s injuries would have been minimized had he been wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident … . At trial, both of the plaintiff’s treating physicians testified in general terms that use of a seat belt can reduce the risk of injury. This evidence was insufficient to satisfy the defendants’ burden of proof … . Robles v Polytemp, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03341, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

 

, ,

Pulling Into Traffic Without Activating Lights and Siren Did Not Constitute Reckless Disregard for the Safety of Others

The Third Department determined the vehicle accident was not the result of “reckless disregard for the safety of others” (vehicle and Traffic Law 1104) on the part of a police officer responding to an emergency.  Apparently the officer (Derkowski) had just began a pursuit and was pulling into traffic without his lights or siren activated when the collision occurred:

Derkowski intended to pursue a fleeing suspect in his patrol car, a pursuit that gained additional urgency when he spotted the suspect driving north on Lafayette Street (cf. Muniz v City of Schenectady, 38 AD3d at 991). Prior to turning onto the street in order to follow the suspect, Derkowski looked in both directions to ensure that no traffic was coming. His view of the southbound lane was obscured, however, by several illegally parked vehicles. Derkowski then turned left onto the street and collided with plaintiff. Derkowski did not activate his emergency lights or siren prior to turning, and plaintiff testified that it did not appear that Derkowski had his headlights on. Inasmuch as the pursuit had just commenced and Derkowski checked for oncoming traffic before turning, his failure to have lights and sirens on constituted nothing more than “a momentary lapse in judgment not rising to the level of ‘reckless disregard for the safety of others'” … . Rouse-Harris v City of Schenectady Police Dept, 2015 NY Slip Op 00591, 3rd Dept 1-22-15

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Licensed Driver Properly Supervised Young Driver with a Learner’s Permit

In an automobile collision case, the Second Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied because a question of fact had been raised about whether defendant properly supervised the young driver who held a learner’s permit. The court explained the relevant law:

The learner-driver with a permit “may only operate a motor vehicle while under the immediate supervision and control of a duly licensed driver” (…see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 502[5][a][ii]). A licensed driver “is under a duty to use general or reasonable care in the instruction and supervision of the learner-driver” …, and also must “take necessary measures to prevent negligence on the part of the driver with the learner’s permit” … . Mejia v Kennedy, 2015 NY Slip Op 00504, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

,

Question of Fact About Whether ATV Driven with Owner’s Permission Based Upon Owner’s Restrictions on Use of the ATV

The Third Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether an all terrain vehicle (ATV) was being operated with the owner’s consent at the time of a collision (a requirement for vicarious liability–Vehicle and Traffic Law 2411).  The owner claimed only his grandson had permission to operate the ATV and operation of the ATV on a public highway was not permitted by him.  The accident occurred when the ATV was driven by someone other than the owner’s grandson (with the grandson’s permission) on a public highway.  The grandson was driving an ATV which had just been damaged in an accident and they were using the public highway to return to the off-road trails:

Although [the owner] and his grandson both confirm that the restrictions regarding where the ATV could be operated had been imposed, when the “the disavowals are arguably suspect, as where there is evidence suggesting implausibility, collusion or implied permission, the issue of consent should go to a jury” … . Here, the testimony of [the owner] is self-interested and his grandson–who is not a party–has no interest of his own in contradicting his grandfather’s position. Under these circumstances, we are persuaded that the grandson’s alleged directions and assurances to [the driver of the ATV] could imply, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, [the owner’s] restrictions were flexible and had been lifted under the circumstances. Accordingly, the issue of implied permission should be determined by a jury … .

Sepsi v Watson, 2015 NY Slip Op 00414, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

,

Regulation Mandating a 25-Year Look-Back for Relicensing (Driver’s License) Is a Valid Exercise of the Department of Motor Vehicles’ Authority/Regulation Was Correctly Applied to Deny Petitioner’s Application for Relicensing

The Fourth Department determined the 25-year look-back for relicensing in the Department of Motor Vehicles regulations was a valid exercise of the department’s authority.  Under the regulation, the department was required to deny petitioner’s application for relicensing based upon his record:

We conclude that 15 NYCRR 136.5 [the 25-year look-back] is not legislative in nature, inasmuch as the Legislature delegated its authority to administer the relicensing process to the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 215 [a]; 510 [5], [6]…). Therefore, in promulgating 15 NYCRR part 136, the Commissioner has not “act[ed] inconsistently with the Legislature, or usurp[ed] its prerogatives” … . * * *

Here, within the 25 years preceding petitioner’s most recent revocable offense (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [a] [4]), i.e., driving while intoxicated, petitioner has two other alcohol-related driving convictions, i.e., driving while intoxicated and driving while ability impaired, both under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [a] [1] [i]). Furthermore, respondent properly concluded that petitioner committed a serious driving offense within the meaning of the regulation because the regulation defines a serious driving offense as occurring where a driver has accumulated “20 or more points from any violations” (15 NYCRR 136.5 [a] [2] [iv]), and petitioner had accumulated 21 points from other traffic violations. Respondent was therefore required to deny petitioner’s application for relicensing. Matter of Shearer v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 00051, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

 

, , ,

In a DWI Case, Operation Proved by Circumstantial Evidence

The Third Department determined circumstantial evidence the defendant had been driving while intoxicated was sufficient.  The defendant went to a witness' home seeking assistance after his car ended up in a ditch.  [Although not summarized here, the decision, which affirmed the conviction, also has in depth discussions of errors in juror selection (failure to address bias expressed by a juror re: a DWI case where peremptory challenges eventually exhausted), the criteria for juror disqualification when a juror is related to a witness but does not realize it until the witness testified, and related ineffective assistance claims.]:

A defendant need not be driving to operate a vehicle for purposes of the Vehicle and Traffic Law; it is enough if the evidence shows that he or she is behind the wheel with the engine running … . The testimony was that when defendant arrived on [a witness'] doorstep to request assistance with getting the car out of the ditch, he was alone and smelled of alcohol. In addition to the testimony of [witnesses] describing his efforts, defendant acknowledged that he was behind the wheel of the car, and that the car was running with the wheels spinning as he attempted to drive the car out of the ditch. These factors are sufficient to establish that defendant was operating a motor vehicle on a public highway … . People v Colburn, 2014 NY Slip Op 08875, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

, ,

Retroactive Application of New Regulations Affecting the Revocation of Driver’s Licenses for Alcohol- and Drug-Related Convictions or Incidents Okay—No Vested Right Re: License to Drive

The Third Department determined the new regulations concerning the effect of alcohol- or drug-related convictions or incidents can be applied retroactively because they do not affect a vested right:

“Retroactive statutes are those which impair vested rights or alter past transactions or considerations” … . Here, however, petitioner’s driver’s license is not generally viewed as a vested right, but merely a personal privilege subject to reasonable restrictions and revocation by respondent under her discretionary powers (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 510 [c]; 1192 [2]…). Thus, respondent remained free to apply her most recent regulations when exercising her discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny petitioner’s application for relicensing. This is especially so in light of the rational, seven-month moratorium placed on all similarly-situated applicants for relicensing — i.e., persons with three or more alcohol-related driving convictions (see NY Reg, Mar. 13, 2013 at 46…). Furthermore, inasmuch as the revised regulations operated only to nominally change the effect of petitioner’s past acts on his future eligibility to obtain a driver’s license and was not imposed as punishment but, rather, to promote public safety, respondent’s application of 15 NYCRR 136.5 (b) (2) was proper under these circumstances (see … State Administrative Procedure Act § 202 [6]). Matter of Scism v Fiala, 2014 NY Slip Op 08283, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

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