You are here: / Vehicle and Traffic Law
, ,

County Court’s Suppression of Statements and Fruits of Search Reversed

The Third Department reversed County Court’s suppression of defendant’s statements and County Court’s finding that defendant had not voluntarily consented to the search of his car (both based on the absence of Miranda warnings).   The Third Department determined a reasonable person innocent of a crime would still have felt he was free to leave (i.e., that he was not in custody) after his failure of field sobriety tests and a negative alcosensor test.  The Third Department further noted that the failure to provide Miranda warnings would not necessarily render a consent to search involuntary:

The court ….overlooked the settled proposition that “[a] temporary roadside detention pursuant to a routine traffic stop is not custodial within the meaning of Miranda” … .The facts here reveal a reasonable initial interrogation attendant to a roadside detention that was merely investigatory…. The Troopers’ inquiries, the mixed results of the field sobriety tests and a negative alcosensor test would not have caused a reasonable person innocent of any wrongdoing to believe that he or she was in custody….   In our view, the Troopers’ observations of defendant’s condition justified the further  detention  for the  limited  purpose  of  investigating whether  he  was  operating his motor  vehicle in an  impaired condition… .  People v Brown, 105134, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

, ,

People’s Expert Was Not Qualified to Testify About “Reverse Extrapolation” in DWI Prosecution/”Reverse Extrapolation” Is an Accepted Theory However

In this DWI prosecution, the Third Department determined the People’s expert was not qualified to offer testimony about “reverse extrapolation,” but that the theory itself was sound:

[We reject defendant’s generalized challenge to] the  theory  of  reverse extrapolation – the process by which an expert, taking into consideration, among other  things, an individual’s known  BAC at a particular point  in time, renders  an  opinion  as  to  the  individual’s BAC at an earlier point in time. Assuming the expert in question is qualified and a proper foundation has been laid for such opinion, reverse extrapolation testimony may be….  Here, however, the People failed to lay a proper factual foundation for [the expert’s] testimony and, therefore, defendant’s objection in this regard should have been sustained.  People v Menegan, 105337, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

 

, ,

Inventory Search Which Included Removal of Seat Panels and Speakers Okay

Over a substantial dissent by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Piggot, determined a vehicle search after a DWI arrest, in which an illegal weapon was found, was a valid inventory search.  The defendant had argued that the removal of seat panels that were askew and a speaker system demonstrated that the search was not a inventory search because the search was focused on finding contraband:

Following a lawful arrest of a driver of a vehicle that is required to be impounded, the police may conduct an inventory search of the vehicle. The search is “designed to properly catalogue the contents of the item searched” …. However, an inventory search must not be “a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence” …. To guard against this danger, the search must be conducted pursuant to an established procedure “clearly limiting the conduct of individual officers that assures that the searches are carried out consistently and reasonably” …. “While incriminating evidence may be a consequence of an inventory search, it should not be its purpose” …. The People bear the burden of demonstrating the validity of the inventory search ….

Here the People proffered written guidelines, the officer’s testimony regarding his search of the vehicle, and the resulting list of items retained. Although defendant takes issue with the officer’s removal of the speakers by arguing that such action was a ruse designed to search for drugs, the officer’s testimony that it was police protocol to remove any owner-installed equipment, was accepted by the hearing court and we perceive no grounds upon which to overturn that determination. * * *

It was reasonable for the officer to check in the seat panels that were askew as part of his inventory. The fact that the officer knew that contraband is often hidden by criminals in the panels did not invalidate the entire search… .  People v Padilla, No 114, CtApp, 6-6-13

SUPPRESSION

 

, ,

Emergency Doctrine Did Not Apply to Police Officer’s Striking Plaintiff with Patrol Car​

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the emergency doctrine did not apply to a police officer’s striking the plaintiff with his patrol car and ordinary negligence principles applied:

In the instant case, Officer DeMarco acknowledged that he did not see the plaintiff until after he struck him with his car. His conduct – the failure to see that which was there to be seen – was not conduct specified in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b) as exempt from the rules of the road …. Accordingly, his conduct was governed by the principles of ordinary negligence …. In any event, since Officer DeMarco acknowledged at his deposition that, at the time he struck the plaintiff, he was “not aware of any emergency situation that needed to be addressed,” the common-law emergency doctrine is not applicable to this case. Accordingly, the fifth affirmative defense, which is based upon Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, and the sixth affirmative defense, which is based upon the common-law emergency doctrine, must be dismissed.

Under the principles of ordinary negligence, Officer DeMarco’s failure to see what was there to be seen established the plaintiff’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability… . Starkman v City of Long Beach, 2013 NY Slip Op 03829, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

,

Car Dealership Was Not the Owner of a Car Lent to a Customer While Customer’s Vehicle Was Repaired—Therefore Dealership Was Not Vicariously Liable for Injury Caused by the Driver of the Loaned Car

In reversing the motion court and granting summary judgment to defendant car dealership, the Fourth Department (over a dissent) determined that defendant dealership was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, and therefore could not be held vicariously liable under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388.  Defendant’s employee (the daughter of the owner) agreed to lend her personal car to one Leederman while Leederman’s vehicle was being fixed at the dealership.  All of defendant’s “loaner cars” were in use and the dealership’s owner asked his daughter to lend her car to Leederman.  Leederman, in turn, let defendant Trummer use the car.  Trummer was driving when the accident occurred.  The Fourth Department wrote:

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, an owner of a motor vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligent use or operation of such vehicle by anyone operating the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied permission (see § 388 [1] …).The term “owner” is defined as “[a] person, other than a lien holder, having the property in or title to a vehicle . . . The term includes a person entitled to the use and possession of a vehicle . . . subject to a security interest in another person and also includes any lessee or bailee of a motor vehicle . . . having the exclusive use thereof, under a lease or otherwise, for a period greater than thirty days” (§ 128; see § 388 [3]).

We agree with defendant that it established as a matter of law that it was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the motor vehicle accident at issue, and that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to ownership of that vehicle.  Monette v Trummer, et al, CA 12-01274, 79, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, ,

No Evidence Police Officer Acted in “Reckless Disregard” for Safety

The First Department determined the plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about whether a police officer drove his vehicle (which collided with plaintiff’s) in “reckless disregard for the safety of others,” finding plaintiff’s allegations “conclusory and speculative.:”

Defendants’ proof established that defendant Steve Tompos, a police officer, did not act in “reckless disregard for the safety of others” while operating his vehicle in the wrong direction on a one-way street (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[e]). Tompos testified that his vehicle’s emergency lights and siren had been activated prior to the accident, and the evidence showed that he reduced his speed before turning onto the subject street and that he veered to his right in an attempt to avoid impact … . We note in particular that Tompos’s partner testified that Tompos reduced the vehicle’s speed to 10 miles per hour as he turned into the street where the accident occurred. Plaintiff’s testimony that Tompos was driving at a “high” rate of speed, which plaintiff was admittedly unable to estimate, is conclusory and speculative .. . We therefore disagree with the dissent’s view that issues of fact preclude summary judgment. Frezzell v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 02700, 8861 116366/07, 1st Dept, 4-23-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, ,

Question of Fact About Whether Emergency Doctrine Excused Police Officer’s Causing a Collision

In finding that a question of fact had been raised about whether a police office, when responding to an emergency call in her vehicle, had exhibited reckless disregard for the safety of others (resulting in a collision), the Second Department wrote:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 qualifiedly exempts drivers of authorized emergency vehicles from certain traffic laws when they are involved in an emergency operation …. The emergency operation of a police vehicle includes “responding to [a] police call” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b). A radio call to an officer on patrol by a police dispatcher regarding a 911 complaint falls squarely within the plain meaning of “police call” …. When a police officer engages in the specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), such conduct may not form the basis of civil liability to an injured third party unless the officer acts in reckless disregard for the safety of others …. The “reckless disregard” standard requires proof that the officer 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 … . * * *…[T]he respondents submitted the deposition testimony of four witnesses, which raised triable issues of fact as to whether the siren and emergency lights on the police officer’s vehicle were activated and whether that vehicle slowed down prior to entering the intersection at which the collision occurred. Miller v Suffolk County Police Dept, 2013 NY Slip Op 02549, 2012-03783, dInex No 5044/06, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

 

 

, , , ,

Breath Test Results Suppressed Because Defendant Not Informed Her Attorney Had Appeared in the Case Prior to the Test

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, the Second Department affirmed the suppression of a chemical breath-test because the police did not inform the defendant her attorney had appeared in the case before the test was administered.  As Justice Leventhal described the “right to counsel” issue and holding:

This case calls upon us to address a matter of first impression involving the right to counsel under the New York Constitution (see NY Const, art I, § 6), where the defendant consented to a chemical breath test to determine her blood alcohol content (hereinafter BAC), but, prior to the commencement of the test, the police made no effort to inform the defendant that her attorney had appeared in the matter. … [W]e hold that where, as here, the police are aware that an attorney has appeared in a case before the chemical breath test begins, they must make reasonable efforts to inform the motorist of counsel’s appearance if such notification will not substantially interfere with the timely administration of the test. Since the People failed to establish that notifying the defendant of her attorney’s appearance would, in fact, have interfered with the timely administration of the chemical breath test, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of her omnibus motion which was to suppress the results of that test. People v Washington, 2013 NY Slip Op 02600, 2011-07259, Ind No 2510/10, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

SUPPRESS

,

Defendant Could Not Deny Ownership Of Vehicle (Which Was Allegedly Transferred to Another Prior to the Accident) Because License Plates Had Not Been Removed

The Fourth Department determined that a defendant, Myers, was estopped from denying ownership of a vehicle, which was alleged to have been transferred to another defendant, Herring, because Myers’ license plates had not been removed:

With respect to the issue of ownership, we note that, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 420 (1), “[u]pon the transfer of ownership .. . of a motor vehicle . . . , its registration shall expire; and the seller . . . shall remove the number plates from the vehicle.” Consequently, “[a] registered owner who transfers a vehicle without removing the license plates is estopped as against an injured third party from denying ownership” … . Inasmuch as Myers admittedly left his license plates on the vehicle after purportedly transferring ownership to Herring, Myers is estopped from denying ownership of the vehicle as against plaintiffs. Marafferi, et al v Herring, et al, 267, CA 12-01829, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy