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

No “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying Vehicle Stop—Revocation of License for Refusal of Chemical Test Reversed

Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated and refused the chemical test.  As a result petitioner’s license was revoked by an administrative law judge.  The Second Department annulled the determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board (which upheld the revocation).  The court determined the arresting officer did not have “reasonable suspicion” justifying the initial stop.  Petitioner was in a parked car with the engine running. The officer parked behind petitioner’s car, blocking any exit, and then approached the car. Only then did the officer notice signs of intoxication:

At a hearing held pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, the hearing officer is required to determine, inter alia, whether the police lawfully arrested the operator of the motor vehicle for operating such vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 … . In order for an arrest to be lawful, the initial stop must itself be lawful (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 222). Under the circumstances of this case, where the officer prevented the petitioner from departing, activated his vehicle’s emergency lights, and shined a light into the petitioner’s parked vehicle, a forcible stop and detention occurred … . The Department of Motor Vehicles, however, failed to establish that there was reasonable suspicion to justify the forcible stop and detention of the petitioner’s person or vehicle … and, accordingly, the challenged determination cannot be sustained. Matter of Stewart v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 04857, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

, ,

Revocation of Driver’s License for Refusal of the Chemical Test Reversed—No “Reasonable Suspicion” to Justify Vehicle Stop

Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated and refused the chemical test.  As a result petitioner’s license was revoked by an administrative law judge.  The Second Department annulled the determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board (which upheld the revocation).  The court determined the arresting officer did not have “reasonable suspicion” justifying the initial stop.  Petitioner was in a parked car with the engine running. The officer parked behind petitioner’s car, blocking any exit, and then approached the car. Only then did the officer notice signs of intoxication:

At a hearing held pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, the hearing officer is required to determine, inter alia, whether the police lawfully arrested the operator of the motor vehicle for operating such vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 … . In order for an arrest to be lawful, the initial stop must itself be lawful (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 222). Under the circumstances of this case, where the officer prevented the petitioner from departing, activated his vehicle’s emergency lights, and shined a light into the petitioner’s parked vehicle, a forcible stop and detention occurred … . The Department of Motor Vehicles, however, failed to establish that there was reasonable suspicion to justify the forcible stop and detention of the petitioner’s person or vehicle … and, accordingly, the challenged determination cannot be sustained. Matter of Stewart v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 04857, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

, ,

“Reckless Disregard” Standard of Care Applies to Operators of Street Sweepers in New York City—Standard Explained

The Court of Appeals determined the “reckless disregard” standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103, not the ordinary negligence standard, applied to the operator of a New York City street sweeper who was in the process of cleaning the street when the sweeper struck plaintiff’s car.  A question of fact had been raised whether the applicable standard of care was violated:

… [U]nder VTL § 1642, the City of New York is authorized to establish additional rules, including rules that supercede those of the State (see VTL § 1642 [a] [“the legislative body of any city having a population in excess of one million, may by local law . . . restrict or regulate traffic on or pedestrian use of any highway . . .]). At the time of the accident, 34 RCNY [Rules of the City of New York] § 4-02 (d) (1)(v) provided that VTL § 1103 applies “to any person or team or any operator of a motor vehicle or other equipment while actually engaged in work on a highway” and that “such persons are not relieved from the duty to proceed at all times during all phases of such work with due regard for the safety of all persons nor shall the foregoing provisions of this subparagraph protect such persons or teams or such operators of motor vehicles or other equipment from the consequences of their reckless disregard for the safety of others” (34 RCNY § 4-02 [d] [1] [iv]).

In Riley [95 NY2d 455], this Court held that the unambiguous language of VTL § 1103 (b), as further supported by its legislative history, made clear that the statute exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles, including sanitation sweepers, which are “actually engaged in work on a highway” (95 NY2d at 460), and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care (see id. at 466). The Court further concluded that liability under that standard is established upon a showing that the covered vehicle’s operator “‘has intentionally done 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’ and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” (id. at 466… ). Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 04788, CtApp 6-9-15

 

,

Testimony by the Vehicle Owner that His Vehicle Was “Missing” at the Time of the Accident Did Not Overcome the Statutory Presumption the Vehicle Was Being Driven with the Owner’s Consent at the Time of the Accident

The Second Department determined the evidence at a framed issue hearing was insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption that Woodley’s vehicle was being driven with the owner’s consent at the time of the accident.  The driver of the Woodley vehicle at the time of the accident was not known.  Woodley testified only that the vehicle was “missing” at the time of the accident.  Woodley also testified that only he and his wife had keys to the vehicle and the keys were found in the vehicle after the accident:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 creates a strong presumption that the driver of a vehicle is operating it with the owner’s consent, which can only be rebutted by substantial evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was not operated with the owner’s permission … . “The uncontradicted testimony of a vehicle owner that the vehicle was operated without his or her permission, does not, by itself, overcome the presumption of permissive use” … .

Although evidence that a vehicle was stolen at the time of the accident may overcome the presumption of permissive use …, under the particular circumstances present here, the vehicle owner’s testimony that the vehicle was missing at the time of the accident, without more, was insufficient to overcome the presumption. Matter of State Farm Ins Co v Kathleen Walker-Pinckney, 2014 NY Slip Op 04018, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

,

Plaintiff Who Had Right of Way Should Have Been Granted Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined summary judgment should have been granted in an intersection collision case.  The plaintiff had the right of way and defendants’ vehicle failed to yield.  No question of fact was raised about plaintiff’s comparative fault:

The operator of a vehicle with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that the opposing driver will obey the traffic laws requiring him or her to yield … . However, a driver who has the right-of-way has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle already in the intersection, including keeping a proper lookout and to see what can be seen through the proper use of his or her senses … . “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” … . Bennett v Granata, 2014 NY Slip Op 03968, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

,

The Amount of Alcohol Consumed by Defendant and the Extent of His Intoxication at the Time of the Vehicle-Accident Evinced “Wanton and Reckless” Conduct Which Supported a Punitive-Damages Award

The Second Department determined the award of punitive damages by the jury was supported by clear and convincing evidence.  Defendant was intoxicated at the time of the vehicle accident.  The fact that defendant was driving while intoxicated would not, standing alone, warrant punitive damages. However, other factors, including defendant’s high blood-alcohol level and his “incoherence” at the time of the accident evinced the requisite “wanton and reckless” conduct:

Whereas compensatory damages are intended to assure that the victim receives “fair and just compensation commensurate with the injury sustained,” punitive damages are meant to “punish the tortfeasor and to deter this wrongdoer and others similarly situated from indulging in the same conduct in the future” … . Evidence that a defendant was driving while intoxicated is insufficient, standing alone, to justify the imposition of punitive damages … . However, driving while intoxicated may support an award for punitive damages where there is additional evidence that the defendant engaged in “wanton and reckless” conduct evincing heedlessness and an utter disregard for the safety of others … . Chiara v Dernago, 2015 NY Slip Op 04444, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

, ,

Driver of Street Sweeper Which Struck Plaintiff’s Car Entitled to Statutory Immunity

The Third Department determined the driver of a street sweeper was engaged in highway work (re: Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103) at the time the sweeper collided with plaintiff’s vehicle.  Therefore the “reckless disregard for the safety of others” standard of care applied to the sweeper driver. The driver was working on a highway and had to make several passes to clean up spilled gravel.  Because it was a divided highway, the sweeper driver had to make a u-turn and return on the opposite side of highway to make another pass.  The immunity afforded by Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 applies only when actual work on the highway is being done, not when a worker is driving to or from the work site. The Third Department held that the statutory immunity was available here, even though the accident did not occur as the sweeper was engaged, because the driver was forced to use a circuitous route to complete the assigned task:

With exceptions not applicable here, the safety rules and regulations set forth in the Vehicle and Traffic Law do “not apply to persons . . . while actually engaged in work on a highway nor . . . to hazard vehicles while actually engaged in hazardous operation on or adjacent to a highway but shall apply to such persons and vehicles when traveling to or from such hazardous operation” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 [b]…). If the person is “actually engaged” in work or a hazardous operation, the applicable standard of care is “reckless disregard for the safety of others,” but the exception does not apply where the person is traveling to or from the hazardous operation … . Matsch v Chemung County Dept. of Pub. Works, 2015 NY Slip Op 04374, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

,

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

 

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