You are here: / Vehicle and Traffic Law
, ,

PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; BUT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT DRIVER’S CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bicyclist’s motion for summary judgment on liability in this traffic accident case should have been granted. However, plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s contributory negligence affirmative defense was properly denied. Defendant suddenly backed up in and attempt to parallel park and struck plaintiff. The court noted that Supreme Court properly refused to consider an uncertified police report submitted by defendant in opposition to summary judgment:

The plaintiff … demonstrated that the defendant reversed her vehicle on the roadway “without taking proper precautions” in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1211(a) … . In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “The defendant did not submit an affidavit describing the events surrounding the accident which rebutted the version of events presented in the plaintiff’s affidavit” … . Further, “[c]ontrary to the defendant[‘s] contention, the [Supreme Court] properly declined to consider a particular uncertified police accident report in determining the motion as it would have provided the sole basis for denying summary judgment” …

“With few exceptions . . . , a person riding a bicycle on a roadway is entitled to all of the rights and bears all of the responsibilities of a driver of a motor vehicle” (… Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1231). Therefore, “[a] bicyclist is required,” inter alia, “to use reasonable care for his or her own safety, to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for vehicles, and to avoid placing himself or herself in a dangerous position” … . Dieubon v Moore, 2024 NY Slip Op 03881, Second Dept 7-24-24

Practice Point: Backing up without taking precautions violates the Vehicle and Traffic Law and constitutes negligence per se.

Practice Point: A bicyclist must use reasonable care for his or her safety and may therefore be contributorily negligent in a car-bicycle collision.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO QUESTION PLAINTIFF’S CAR HYDROPLANED AND SLID INTO DEFENDANT’S LANE, DEFENDANT INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT HOW LONG PLAINTIFF’S CAR WAS IN DEFENDANT’S LANE BEFORE IT WAS STRUCK (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s own motion papers, which included the deposition testimony of plaintiffs, raised questions of fact about whether the emergency doctrine applied in this car accident case. Plaintiff testified her car hydroplaned on rain water and slid into the oncoming lane where her car was struck by defendant’s. Plaintiff testified he car came to a complete stop for as much as 20 seconds before the collision. Defendant alleged he had no time to brake when plaintiff’s car entered his lane:

“[I]n order for a driver to be entitled to summary judgment based upon the emergency doctrine, he or she must demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the emergency situation with which he or she was confronted was not of his or her own making and that his or her reaction was reasonable under the circumstances such that he or she could not have done anything to avoid the collision” … . There is no question that an emergency situation may arise “when a car going in the opposite direction crosses into the driver’s lane” … . Nevertheless, “summary judgment is only appropriate where it is established that the driver invoking the doctrine ‘did not contribute to the creation of the emergency situation, and that his or her reaction was reasonable under the circumstances such that he or she could not have done anything to avoid the collision’ ” … . Lee v Helsley, 2024 NY Slip Op 03213, Third Dept 6-13-24

Practice Point: If a party includes the opposing party’s deposition testimony in a summary judgment motion and the opposing party’s testimony raises a question of fact, summary judgment will be denied without the need to consider the opposing papers.

 

, ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ON ICE AND SNOW AFTER GETTING OUT OF A VEHICLE RESULTED FROM OPERATION OF THE VEHICLE SUCH THAT THE INSURER IS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a partial dissent, determined the insurer, Progressive, was obligated to defend the owner of a vehicle for injuries suffered by a passenger (Malone) who slipped and fell on ice and snow after getting out of the car. The question was whether the injury resulted from “operation” of the vehicle:

“Use of an automobile encompasses more than simply driving it, and includes all necessary incidental activities such as entering and leaving its confines” … . While a claim that an accident occurred during unloading “does not require a showing that the vehicle itself produced the injury . . . , it is insufficient to show merely that the accident occurred during the period of loading or unloading. Rather, the accident must be the result of some act or omission related to the use of the vehicle” … .

… Malone specifically alleged in the underlying action that Anthony (the vehicle-owner’s son) parked his vehicle in a negligent manner on a slippery surface and that such negligence was a proximate cause of her accident. Progressive submitted an affidavit from Malone … in which she stated, “I slipped on the snowy and icy condition as I was taking my first steps toward the house. I dropped my child and my legs slid, along the gradient, underneath the CAPERNA Vehicle.” Progressive further submitted Malone’s deposition testimony in the underlying action, which demonstrated that the door of the vehicle was open and that she had only taken two steps away from the vehicle when she slipped and fell on snow and ice located on the lawn. As such, Progressive failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law declaring that the accident was not a covered event, as there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Malone had completed unloading the vehicle. As there are allegations that the vehicle was used negligently and that such negligence contributed to the accident, Progressive was not entitled to summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify Arthur (the vehicle owner) in the underlying action … . Matter of Progressive Dr. Ins. v Malone, 2024 NY Slip Op 03178, Second Dept 6-12-24

Practice Point: “Operation” of a vehicle may include parking the vehicle in a manner which makes getting out of it dangerous. Here a passenger slipped and fell on ice and snow after getting out of the parked vehicle and the insurer was obligated to defend the owner of the vehicle.

 

, ,

IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE, THE BUS DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED; THE BUS STRUCK A VEHICLE WHICH STOPPED SUDDENLY AFTER IT WAS CUT OFF BY A THIRD VEHICLE; THE BUS DRIVER’S AFFIDAVIT WAS SUPPORTED BY SURVEILLANCE VIDEO (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant bus driver raised a question of fact about the applicability of the emergency doctrine in this bus-passenger injury case. The bus driver’s affidavit, together with video evidence, indicated that the vehicle struck by the bus stopped suddenly after being cut off by a third vehicle:

… [T]he defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for the collision through the submission of an affidavit from Mendes [the bus driver] and a surveillance video of the accident … . In Mendes’ affidavit, she attested, among other things, that she collided with the vehicle owned by Paratransit when that vehicle made a sudden stop after being “cut off” by another vehicle. Moreover, the surveillance video was consistent with the assertions in Mendes’ affidavit. Yearwood v New York City Tr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 02555, Second Dept 5-8-24

Practice Point: Although most rear-end collisions are deemed the fault of the rear driver, here it was alleged the front vehicle stopped suddenly after being cut off by a third vehicle, raising a question of fact about the applicability of the emergency doctrine as a defense.

Practice Point: Here is this rear-end collision case, the availability of surveillance video supported the applicability of the emergency doctrine as a defense.

 

, , ,

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT A FINE IS PART OF THE SENTENCE RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the failure to inform defendant that a fine was part of the sentence rendered the plea involuntary:

“[I]n order for a plea to be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, a defendant must be advised of the direct consequences of that plea” … . “The direct consequences of a plea—those whose omission from a plea colloquy makes the plea per se invalid—are essentially the core components of a defendant’s sentence: a term of probation or imprisonment, a term of postrelease supervision, a fine” … , and the failure to advise a defendant at the time of the guilty plea of a direct consequence of that plea “requires that [the] plea be vacated” … . Here, the court failed to advise defendant that the sentence imposed on a person convicted of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree must include a fine in an amount between $500 and $5,000 (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [b] [i]). People v Carmichael, 2024 NY Slip Op 02427, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: A judge’s failure to inform the defendant that a fine is part of the sentence renders the guilty plea involuntary.

 

, ,

EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST ADMITTED ROLLING THROUGH A BIKE-PATH STOP SIGN BEFORE ENTERING THE INTERSECTION, THERE REMAINED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER FAILED TO SEE WHAT WAS TO BE SEEN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-driver’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection bicycle-car collision case should not have been granted. Although plaintiff-bicyclist acknowledged he did not completely stop at the bike-path stop sign before entering the intersection, there were questions of fact whether defendant driver (Butler) failed to see what was to be seen:

… [P]laintiff’s admission that he came to a “rolling stop” at the stop sign, which amounts to a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 (a) and establishes some degree of fault on his part. Nevertheless, that fact is not dispositive as to whether he was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . To this point, Butler’s testimony suggests that no other vehicles were at the intersection prior to her turning left and that her visibility down the bike path was limited to approximately 20 feet, due in part to a building, trees and bushes obstructing her view. However, our review of the photographs of the intersection contained in the record casts doubt on that account, as a lengthy portion of the bike trail both preceding and after the stop sign located on said trail appears visible from Butler’s vantage point both at the light and after she commenced the left turn. Whether plaintiff should have been visible to Butler is further unresolved by the time frames relative to Butler commencing the turn and the time to impact as well as the varying accounts from plaintiff, Butler and the police report specific as to how far Butler had traveled into the intersection before the collision took place … . Ruberti v Butler, 2024 NY Slip Op 02358, Third Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: In this intersection bicycle-car collision case, plaintiff-bicyclist’s failure to come to a complete stop at the bike-path stop sign did not establish he was the sole proximate cause of the accident.. There were questions of fact about whether defendant driver failed to see what was there to be seen.

 

, ,

THE POLICE OFFICER WHO STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR WAS ENGAGED IN AN “EMERGENCY OPERATION” AND DID NOT ACT IN “RECKLESS DISREGARD” OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city demonstrated the police officer who struck plaintiff’s car was engaged in an “emergency operation” at the time of the accident and did not act in “reckless disregard” for the safety of others:

Defendants demonstrated that defendant police officer was engaged in an “emergency operation” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 by submitting evidence that the officer was responding to a radio call about a man with a gun when his police vehicle struck plaintiff’s car … . Accordingly, defendants demonstrated that the officer’s conduct is to be assessed under the statute’s “reckless disregard” standard (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e] …).

Defendants further demonstrated that the officer did not operate the police vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of others (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e] …). The officer testified that he approached a red light with a vehicle stopped at the intersection, so he had to cross the double yellow lines to avoid it. He also testified that he reduced his speed and looked both ways when approaching the red light at the intersection. The officer attempted to avoid colliding with plaintiff by braking hard and swerving upon realizing that plaintiff’s car had entered the intersection. Seo v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 01785, First Dept 4-2-24

Practice Point: When a police officer engaged in an emergency operation takes steps to avoid colliding with other vehicles the “reckless disregard for the safety of others” standard has not been met.

Similar issues and result in a suit against a private ambulance company in Alonso v Crest Transp. Serv., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01788, Second Dept 4-3-24

 

, ,

THE REAR-DRIVER IN A REAR-END COLLISION IS NOT ALWAYS NEGLIGENT; HERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FRONT DRIVER STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether the rear driver in this rear-end collision case was negligent. The rear-driver alleged plaintiff’s vehicle stopped for no apparent reason when no cars were in front of it:

“‘A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle'” (… see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]). “‘There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and a defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident'” …. “‘[N]ot every rear-end collision is the exclusive fault of the rearmost driver. The frontmost driver also has the duty not to stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision'” … . Laureano v EAN Holdings, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01538, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: The rear driver in a rear-end collision case is not always negligent. Here there was a question of fact whether the front driver stopped suddenly for no apparent reason.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE REAR DRIVER IN A REAR-END COLLISION IS NOT ALWAYS NEGLIGENT, THE ALLEGATION THE FRONT DRIVER SUDDENLY STOPPED FOR A YELLOW LIGHT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO AVOID SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE FRONT DRIVER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been awarded summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. The defendant rear driver alleged plaintiff stopped for a yellow light, which did not raise a question of fact about plaintiff’s negligence:

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . “A sudden stop of the lead vehicle may constitute a nonnegligent explanation for a rear-end collision” … . “But ‘vehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows'” … .

Here, in support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted his own affidavit that established, prima facie, that the defendant driver was negligent when he struck the rear of the plaintiff’s stopped vehicle, and that the defendant driver’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendant driver’s explanation for striking the plaintiff’s vehicle in the rear, set forth in his affidavit in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, that the plaintiff’s vehicle stopped abruptly at a yellow light in front of the intersection’s thick white stop line, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the defendant driver’s negligence or whether the plaintiff’s actions contributed to the happening of the accident … . Yawagyentsang v Safeway Constr. Enters., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01580, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: There are more appellate decisions of late finding questions of fact about whether the rear-driver is negligent in a rear-end collision based upon the allegation the front-driver stopped suddenly for no apparent reason. Here the rear driver alleged the front driver stopped suddenly for a yellow light. That was not enough to raise a question of fact.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF ALL THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF THE GUILTY PLEA, INCLUDING THE FINE; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s conviction to driving while ability impaired by drugs, determined the sentencing judge did not inform defendant of the direct consequences of the guilty  plea:

“It is well settled that, in order for a plea to be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, a defendant must be advised of the direct consequences of that plea” … . “The direct consequences of a plea—those whose omission from a plea colloquy makes the plea per se invalid—are essentially the core components of a defendant’s sentence: a term of probation or imprisonment, a term of postrelease supervision, a fine” … , and the failure to advise a defendant at the time of the guilty plea of all of the potential direct consequence of that plea “requires that [the] plea be vacated” … . Here, the court advised defendant that, upon a violation of interim probation, he could be sentenced “to anything allowable by law which . . . is up to two and a third to seven years in the department of corrections,” but failed to advise him of any other potential direct consequences of the plea, including a fine (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]). We note that defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is not encompassed in an appeal waiver … , and that preservation of defendant’s contention was not required under the circumstances of this case inasmuch as “defendant did not have sufficient knowledge of the terms of the plea at the plea allocution and, when later advised, did not have sufficient opportunity to move to withdraw [his] plea” … . People v Abraham, 2024 NY Slip Op 01419, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: If a judge fails to inform a defendant of the direct consequences of a guilty plea, including the fine, the plea must be vacated.

 

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