You are here: / Vehicle and Traffic Law
,

Failure to Strictly Comply with the Statutory Requirements for the Contents of a Parking Ticket Invalidates the Ticket

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined that the failure to strictly comply with the statutory requirements for a parking ticket rendered the tickets invalid and unenforceable.  Specifically, the type of license plate on the trucks in question was described on the ticket as “IRP” when the plates should have been described as “Apportioned” or “APP” (“IRP” and “APP” are related terms used interchangeably by the NYC Parking Violations Board).  The decision is noteworthy because of the strictness with which the statutory requirements for the contents of a parking ticket are applied:

…[T]his Court is bound by the plain language of VTL 238(2). We must conclude that the New York City Parking Violations Bureau’s policy of deeming “IRP” an accurate description of out-of-state “APPORTIONED” license plates for purposes of adjudicating parking violations violates the statute. As indicated, VTL § 238(2) requires that a notice of parking violation shall include the “plate type as shown by the registration plates of said “vehicle” (emphasis added). It is undisputed that each ticket here described the “vehicle type” as “IRP,” while the corresponding license plate described the vehicle type as “APPORTIONED.” The choice of the words in the statute “as shown” by the vehicle plate is evidence that the legislature intended strict compliance with the statute, and “new language cannot be imported into a statute to give it a meaning not otherwise found therein” … . Matter of Nestle Waters N Am Inc v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 05609, 1st Dept 7-31-14

 

, ,

Defendant’s Actions In Driving Under the Influence and Causing a Collision Did Not Support Convictions for Offenses Requiring Proof of a Depraved Indifference to Human Life

The Second Department determined that there was insufficient proof of “depraved indifference” to support defendant’s convictions for first degree assault and reckless endangerment stemming from a collision with a vehicle driven by Petrone:

Depraved indifference is ” best understood as an utter disregard for the value of human life—a willingness to act not because one intends harm, but because one simply doesn’t care whether grievous harm results or not'” … . It is embodied in conduct that is ” so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so devoid of regard of the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes [serious physical injury to] another'” … .

The issue of whether a defendant possessed a state of mind evincing depraved indifference to human life is highly fact-sensitive, requiring a case-by-case analysis … . Here, the prosecution’s witnesses established that the defendant’s vehicle, without braking, collided into the back of Petrone’s vehicle while both were traveling eastbound in the left lane on Northern Boulevard. The collision was of such force that both vehicles left the roadway and flipped over. Moreover, the testimony of the forensic toxicologist demonstrated that, at the time of the accident, the defendant was significantly impaired due to his ingestion of six different drugs, including methadone. Nevertheless, the evidence of the defendant’s conduct did not support a finding of depraved indifference. The defendant was not driving well in excess of the speed limit, he was not driving the wrong way into oncoming traffic, he had not failed to obey traffic signals, and there was no evidence that he was driving erratically prior to the collision … . Under these factual circumstances, the prosecution failed to establish that the defendant possessed an “utter disregard for the value of human life” or that he “simply [did not] care whether grievous harm result[ed] or not” from his actions … . Consequently, there is simply no “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences [that] could lead a rational person to the conclusion” … that the defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life when he caused the injuries to Petrone… . People v Jakobson, 2014 NY Slip Op 05354. 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

,

Proof Vehicle Was Stolen at the Time of the Accident Defeated Action Based Upon Vehicle-Owner’s Vicarious Liability

The Second Department determined defendant’s evidence that her vehicle had been stolen at the time of the accident entitled her to summary judgment in an action based upon the vehicle-owner’s vicarious liability:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1) provides that, with the exception of bona fide commercial lessors of motor vehicles, which are exempt from vicarious liability by virtue of federal law …, the owner of a motor vehicle shall be liable for the negligence of one who operates the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied consent … . This statute creates a presumption that the driver was using the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied permission …, which only may be rebutted by substantial evidence sufficient to show that the vehicle was not operated with the owner’s consent … . Evidence that a vehicle was stolen at the time of the accident will rebut the presumption of permissive use … . Fuentes v Virgil, 2014 NY Slip Op 04899, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

,

Vehicle On a Flatbed Tow Truck Is Not In “Use or Operation” Within Meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law 388

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court finding that the owner (Rosa) of a vehicle which is on a flatbed tow truck when the truck is involved in an accident cannot no be liable under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1) imposes liability on all vehicle owners for accidents resulting from negligence in the permissive “use or operation” of their vehicles, including use “in combination with one another, by attachment or tow” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388[1]…). The statute’s primary objective is ” to provide recourse to an injured party against a person, financially able to respond, without whose conduct in permitting use of the vehicle the accident would not have happened'” … .

Here, Rosa’s vehicle was not in use at the time of the accident, either on its own or in combination with the flatbed tow truck… . Rather, it was merely cargo on the flatbed tow truck. Gibson v Sing Towinf Inc, 2014 Slip Op 03483, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

,

Plaintiff Bicyclist Entitled to Summary Judgment—Defendant Driver Made a Left Turn into a Parking Lot When Plaintiff Was Riding in Oncoming Lane

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff bicyclist who was struck by defendants’ vehicle.  Defendant driver (Robert) made a left turn into a parking lot when plaintiff was riding in the oncoming lane:

“There can be more than one proximate cause [of an accident] and thus, the proponent of a summary judgment motion has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law” … . Consequently, “[t]o prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability in an action alleging negligence, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault” … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that Robert, who testified at his deposition that he did not see the plaintiff until seconds before the impact, was negligent in violating Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1141 and 1163(a) by making a left turn into the path of oncoming traffic without yielding the right of way to the plaintiff when the turn could not be made with reasonable safety … . The plaintiff also demonstrated that Robert’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident and that he was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident through his deposition testimony that he saw Robert’s vehicle stopped and waiting to make the turn, slowed down in response, stood up on his pedals to make eye contact with Robert to ensure that Robert was aware of his presence, and continued riding when he believed that Robert had made eye contact with him. Further, the plaintiff testified that, upon seeing Robert commence making the left turn in front of him, he immediately attempted to apply his brakes and maneuver around Robert’s vehicle, but there was an insufficient amount of time to successfully do so … . Sirlin v Schreib, 2014 NY Slip Op 03504, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

,

Police Officer Struck by Plaintiffs’ Decedents When the Officer Was Making a U-Turn to Follow a Car Was Entitled to Summary Judgment Under the Statutory “Reckless Disregard” Standard

The Fourth Department determined summary judgment should have been granted in favor of a police officer (Bluman) who was struck by plaintiffs' decedents when the officer was attempting to make a u-turn to follow a vehicle.  The court determined the reckless disregard standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104 applied and that the officer's “momentary judgment lapse” did not rise to the level of reckless disregard as a matter of law:

At the time of the accident, Bluman was operating an “authorized emergency vehicle” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [a]) and was engaged in an emergency operation by virtue of the fact that he was attempting a U-turn in order to “pursu[e] an actual or suspected violator of the law” (§ 114-b). As the Court of Appeals recognized …, “the reckless disregard standard of care in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) only 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). Any other injury-causing conduct of such a driver is governed by the principles of ordinary negligence.” We conclude that, by attempting to execute a U-turn, Bluman's conduct was exempted from the rules of the road by section 1104 (b) (4). As a result, his conduct is governed by the reckless disregard standard of care in section 1104 (e).

It is well settled that a ” momentary judgment lapse' does not alone rise to the level of recklessness required of the driver of an emergency vehicle in order for liability to attach” (Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 557). Here, Bluman acted under the mistaken belief that the other southbound vehicles were sufficiently behind him and that it was, at that moment, safe to execute a U-turn. This “constituted a momentary lapse in judgment not rising to the level of reckless disregard for the safety of others' “… . Dodds v Town of Hamburg, 2014 NY Slip Op 03060, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

,

Statutory “Reckless Disregard” Standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) Applied to the Driver of a Town Truck—The Driver Was Using a Plow to Remove Water and Debris from a Road—Because the Driver Was Acting On His Own and Had Not Been Assigned to Remove the Water and Debris, the Question Raised on Appeal Was Whether the Driver Was Doing “Work” within the Meaning of Section 1103 (b) such that the Statutory Standard, as Opposed to the Ordinary Negligence Standard, Applied

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the statutory “reckless disregard” standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b), not the ordinary negligence standard, applied to the actions of the driver of a town truck..  The driver, Grzybek,  was using a plow to remove water and debris from a service road.  The water sprayed onto the windshield of the truck, obstructing the driver’s vision and causing the driver to cross into an oncoming lane, striking plaintiffs’ vehicle. Because the driver was not assigned the task of removing water and debris from the road, the dissenters argued the driver was not engaged in “work” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) and, therefore, the ordinary negligence standard, not the “reckless disregard” standard of section 1103 (b), applied:

…[T]he statute exempts “all [municipal] vehicles actually engaged in work on a highway’ . . . from the rules of the road” … . The statute does not state that it exempts only those vehicles engaged in “assigned” work. Plowing water and debris from a road is work, and that work is within the scope of Grzybek’s duties. Plaintiffs do not suggest otherwise. Rather, their contention is that the statute applies only when the vehicles are “performing their assigned work” and that Grzybek was not assigned to plow water and debris from the service road on the day of the accident. In our view, interpreting the statute as the dissent and plaintiffs suggest improperly adds language to the statute by qualifying the word “work.” It is not the function of this Court to usurp the power of the legislature and rewrite a clear and unambiguous statute. Aside from statutory exceptions not relevant herein, all municipal vehicles actually engaged in work are exempt from the rules of the road. Inasmuch as Grzybek’s vehicle was actually engaged in work, albeit unassigned work, the reckless disregard standard of care set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies as a matter of law. * * *

…[W]e conclude that plaintiffs, in opposition to defendants’ cross motion, submitted evidence from which a jury could find that Grzybek “had 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” and [did] so with conscious indifference to the outcome’ ” … . Gawron v Town of Cheektowaga, 2014 NY Slip Op 03051, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

, ,

New York City Street-Sweeping Vehicles Are Now Exempt from the Rules of the Road Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) (Subject to the “Reckless Disregard” as Opposed to the “Ordinary Negligence” Standard) But Were Not So Exempt in 2010 When this Accident Occurred

The First Department, over a dissent, determined street-sweeping vehicles, at the time of the accident in 2010,  were not “hazard vehicles” exempted from the rules of the road under Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) (apparently, under the Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation, street-sweeping vehicles are now so exempt:)

…Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b), which exempts “hazard vehicles” from the rules of the road and limits the liability of their owners and operators to reckless disregard for the safety of others …, does not apply to the New York City street-sweeping vehicle involved in the collision with plaintiff’s vehicle that gave rise to this action. Therefore, defendants are subject to the ordinary negligence standard of liability, not the reckless disregard standard on which their motion was based. At the time of the accident, in 2010, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b) was superseded by Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 4-02, which excepted street sweepers, among others, from compliance with traffic rules to the limited extent of making such turns and proceeding in such directions as were necessary to perform their operations (34 RCNY 4-02[d][1][iii][A]). While subparagraph (iv) contained a broader exception, expressly invoking Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103, we find that subparagraph (iv) did not include street sweepers because that would have rendered subparagraph (iii) redundant and meaningless. Indeed, when 34 RCNY 4-02 was amended, in 2013, the City Council explained in its “Statement of Basis and Purpose” that the effect of the adopted rule would be “that operators of DOT and New York City Department of Sanitation snow plows, sand/salt spreaders and sweepers will now be subject to the general exemption set forth in subparagraph (iv) of that same subsection” (emphasis added) — a strong indication that they were not so subject before then. Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept, 2014 NY Slip Op 02221, 1st Dept 4-1-14

 

,

Summary Judgment Properly Granted in Favor of Defendant Who Had the Right of Way When Plaintiff Pulled Into Defendant’s Path from a Stop, Even Though there Was Evidence Defendant Was Travelling Slightly Over the Speed Limit/No Evidence Accident Would Have Been Avoided Had the Defendant Been Traveling at the Speed Limit

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that summary judgment was properly granted to defendant truck driver who struck plaintiff’s vehicle as it entered the roadway from a stop.  The truck driver had the right of way (there was no stop sign for the truck driver) and there was evidence the truck was travelling in excess of five miles an hour over the speed limit. The court determined there was no evidence the accident could have been avoided even if the truck had been traveling at the speed limit:

“It is well settled that a driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that drivers of other vehicles will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield” (…see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [a]). Nevertheless, “a driver cannot blindly and wantonly enter an intersection . . . but, rather, is bound to use such care to avoid [a] collision as an ordinarily prudent [motorist] would have used under the circumstances” … .

Here, we conclude … that defendants met their initial burden of establishing that defendant was operating his vehicle “ ‘in a lawful and prudent manner and that there was nothing [he] could have done to avoid the collision’ ” … . Defendant testified that he saw plaintiff’s vehicle at the stop sign, braked as soon as he entered the intersection, and turned to the left “microseconds” after he braked. Despite defendant’s efforts to avoid the accident, his truck struck the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle on the passenger’s side. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact … . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, “the fact that [defendant] may have been driving at a speed in excess of five miles per hour over the posted speed limit . . . is inconsequential inasmuch as there is no indication that [defendant] could have avoided the accident even if [he] had been traveling at or below the posted speed limit” … . Heltz v Barratt…, 184, 4th Dept 3-28-14

Similar (but not identical) facts, same result, over a dissent, in Johnson v Time Warner…, 175, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

, ,

Cannot Sue Vehicle Owner as Vicariously Liable Under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388 Where Driver is Immunized from Suit Under Workers’ Compensation Law 29 (6)

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals determined that “a defendant may [not] pursue a third-party contribution claim under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law [section] 388 against the owner of a vehicle, where the vehicle driver's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries, but the driver is protected from suit by the exclusive remedy provision of New York Workers' Compensation Law [section] 29 (6)…”.  Here the driver, who was determined to be negligent (90%), was using her husband's car to drive a co-worker to a business meeting. The co-worker was injured and his exclusive remedy against the driver was under the Workers' Compensation Law.  The co-worker sued the driver of the other car, who was also determined to be negligent (10%).  The owner of that car (the driver's husband) then sued the owner of the car in which the co-worker was riding (the employee-driver's husband) under Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388 for contribution and indemnification:

In sum, we hold that a defendant may not pursue a third-party contribution claim under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 against a vehicle owner where the driver's negligence was a cause of the plaintiff's injuries, but the driver is insulated from a lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6).  Isabella…Hallock… v Koubek, 45, CtApp 3-27-14

 

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