You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

PLAINTIFF CAN BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NONLEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO A DEFENSE PHYSICAL EXAM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff can be accompanied by a nonlegal representative at a defense physical examination:

Defendants concede that, under this Court’s recent decision in Santana v Johnson (154 AD3d 452 [1st Dept 2017]), they can no longer argue that plaintiff was required to show “special and unusual circumstances” to be permitted to have a nonlegal representative present at a physical examination conducted on their behalf pursuant to CPLR 3121. Martinez v Pinard, 2018 NY Slip Op 02402, First Dept 4-5-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, PHYSICAL EXAM, PLAINTIFF CAN BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NONLEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO A DEFENSE PHYSICAL EXAM (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (PHYSICAL EXAM, PLAINTIFF CAN BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NONLEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO A DEFENSE PHYSICAL EXAM (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3121 (DISCOVERY, PHYSICAL EXAM, PLAINTIFF CAN BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NONLEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO A DEFENSE PHYSICAL EXAM (FIRST DEPT))/PHYSICAL EXAM (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DISCOVERY, PLAINTIFF CAN BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NONLEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO A DEFENSE PHYSICAL EXAM (FIRST DEPT))

,

BECAUSE ONLY A CORPORATE ENTITY FORMED BY PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS NAMED ON THE LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT STABILIZATION PROTECTIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, ,determined plaintiff (Fox) was not entitled to the protections of rent stabilization because the lease was in the name of a corporate entitled formed by the plaintiff and plaintiff was not named in the lease:

In 2008, at Fox’s suggestion, a renewal lease was entered into by plaintiff MBE Ltd., an entity wholly owned by Fox, with the understanding that Fox would continue to occupy the apartment; MBE executed renewal leases for the apartment in 2010 and 2012. Fox has continued to live in the apartment since MBE became the tenant of record. In 2014, defendant 12 East 88th LLC purchased the building and informed Fox that the lease would not be renewed.

Because the 2008 lease, and the subsequent lease renewals, named MBE as the sole tenant and did not identify as the occupant of the apartment a particular individual with a right to demand a renewal lease, Fox is not entitled to the renewal of the lease … .

… [T]his Court [has] established that “a corporation is entitled to a renewal lease where the lease specifies a particular individual as the occupant and no perpetual tenancy is possible” … . Our … cases have construed the first requirement strictly, denying rent stabilization protections to individual occupants who are not actually identified in an entity’s rent stabilized lease … . Fox v 12 E. 88th LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02289, First Dept 4-3-18

​LANDLORD-TENANT (RENT STABILIZATION, BECAUSE ONLY A CORPORATE ENTITY FORMED BY PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS NAMED ON THE LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT STABILIZATION PROTECTIONS (FIRST DEPT))/RENT STABILIZATION (BECAUSE ONLY A CORPORATE ENTITY FORMED BY PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS NAMED ON THE LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT STABILIZATION PROTECTIONS (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, RENT STABILIZATION, BECAUSE ONLY A CORPORATE ENTITY FORMED BY PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS NAMED ON THE LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT STABILIZATION PROTECTIONS (FIRST DEPT))

USE OF A MAKESHIFT LADDER WHEN AN A-FRAME WAS AVAILABLE OR DESCENDING THE LADDER BACKWARDS WITH SHOES UNTIED DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. Use of a makeshift ladder when an A-frame ladder was available, the fact that plaintiff descended the ladder backwards, and the fact that plaintiff’s boots may have been untied did not constitute the sole proximate cause of the accident:

Plaintiff electrician was injured when he fell from a makeshift wooden ladder while negotiating the distance between the first-floor slab of the building under construction and the ground about five feet below, as he was helping unload a delivery of supplies that was being unloaded from the truck on ground level and placed on the slab. Although plaintiff had been provided an A-frame ladder that morning which was in the basement of the building, the parties cite no evidence contradicting plaintiff’s testimony that he could not use it to access the slab because the ground was covered in dirt, debris, and rocks.

Plaintiff’s decision to use the makeshift ladder that his coworkers were also allegedly using was not the sole proximate cause of the accident where he was never instructed not to use it … . Moreover, where no proper safety device was provided, the fact that his boots may have been untied or that he may have been descending the makeshift ladder backwards was not the sole proximate cause of his accident … . Jarzabek v Schafer Mews Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 02295, First Dept 4-3-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (USE OF A MAKESHIFT LADDER WHEN AN A-FRAME WAS AVAILABLE OR DESCENDING THE LADDER BACKWARDS WITH SHOES UNTIED DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, USE OF A MAKESHIFT LADDER WHEN AN A-FRAME WAS AVAILABLE OR DESCENDING THE LADDER BACKWARDS WITH SHOES UNTIED DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

YOUTHFUL OFFENDER RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THE SORA COURT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that in a risk assessment procedure pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) the State Board of Examiners (and, therefore, the court) may consider youthful-offender-related documents:

New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) requires the State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders to assess an offender’s risk of reoffense. In making this determination, the Board has access to an offender’s full criminal background, including defendant’s YO-related records. SORA “thereby grants the Board access to the documents, which are available under the CPL if specifically required or permitted by statute'” … . Additionally, members of the Board have “access to YO-related records for the purpose of carrying out duties specifically authorized by law'” … . Therefore, “SORA’s directives both provide the statutory require[ment] or permi[ssion]’ to release the YO records under one provision of the YO statute, and describe the duties specifically authorized by law’ to allow for their release under another” … .

Accordingly, the CPL specifically provides the Board with access to YO-related documents … . As the Board’s inclusion of defendant’s YO adjudication “in assessing the risk of reoffense was based on the Board’s expertise and experience,” it is entitled to judicial deference … . As neither SORA nor the CPL “prohibit[s] the Board’s consideration of YO adjudications for the limited public safety purpose of accurately assessing an offender’s risk level,” Supreme Court appropriately assessed points under risk factors 9 and 10, relating to defendant’s prior YO adjudication … . People v Simono, 2018 NY Slip Op 02291, First Dept 4-3-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THE SORA COURT (FIRST DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THE SORA COURT (FIRST DEPT))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THE SORA COURT (FIRST DEPT))

PLAINTIFF, WHO TRIPPED ON AN EXTENSION CORD AND FELL DOWN A STAIRWELL, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. He was working in a stairwell and tripped over an extension cord:

Because the stairway was an elevated surface on which plaintiff was required to work, and also the sole means of access to his work area, it constituted a safety device within the meaning of the statute … , as well as an elevated work platform that required provision of an adequate safety device … . Under either theory, it is clear that plaintiff’s fall was the direct result of absence of an adequate safety device, and thus, plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment on the section 240(1) cause of action. That plaintiff tripped on an extension cord does not take the case out of the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1)… , and the fact that the staircase from which plaintiff fell was a permanent structure of the building does not remove this case from the coverage of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Conlon v Carnegie Hall Socy., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02268, First Dept 3-29-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF, WHO TRIPPED ON AN EXTENSION CORD AND FELL DOWN A STAIRWELL, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/STAIRS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF, WHO TRIPPED ON AN EXTENSION CORD AND FELL DOWN A STAIRWELL, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel  because counsel, after defendant pled not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect, conceded defendant suffered from a dangerous mental disorder and thereby waived the required “track” hearing pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 330.20 (a “critical stage” of the proceedings):

… [A]fter a court accepts a not responsible plea, it must issue an examination order for the defendant to be examined by two qualified psychiatric examiners … , who must submit to the court a report of their findings and evaluation regarding defendant’s mental condition … .

Critical to this procedure is the requirement that the court conduct an initial hearing within 10 days after receipt of the psychiatric examination reports, in order to classify the defendant as “track one,” “track two,” or “track three” based on the defendant’s mental condition … . …

“The track designation places more dangerous acquittees under the purview of the Criminal Procedure Law, while less dangerous, though still mentally ill, acquittees are committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health and come under the supervision of the Mental Hygiene Law” … . …

At the initial hearing, the People bear the burden of proving “to the satisfaction of the court,” i.e., by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, that the defendant has a dangerous mental disorder or is mentally ill … .

The initial hearing under CPL 330.20(6) is “a critical stage” of proceedings at which the defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel … . …

… [C]ounsel rendered ineffective assistance when he conceded at the plea proceeding that defendant was a danger to himself and society, and waived defendant’s right to an initial hearing before reviewing the psychiatric examination reports which had not yet been prepared for the court. Further, at the proceeding that followed the issuance of the reports, counsel simply relied on the psychiatrists’ reports and deferred to the court’s discretion. He did not call any witnesses or seek to cross-examine the psychiatrists who prepared the reports. Nor did counsel consult an expert on defendant’s behalf who might have offered a contrasting opinion. People v Darryl T., 2018 NY Slip Op 02280, First Dept 3-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OR MENTAL DISEASE OF DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OR MENTAL DISEASE OF DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S TEXT THAT HE MAY NEED MONEY FOR AN ATTORNEY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS AN INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that a text message from defendant indicating he needed money “just in case for a lawyer” should not have been admitted in evidence in this homicide case. The error was deemed harmless however:

The People should not have been permitted to introduce, as evidence of defendant’s consciousness of guilt, a text exchange the day after the crime in which defendant indicated that he needed money “just in case for a lawyer.” This evidence was an improper infringement of defendant’s right to counsel … . However, under all the circumstances, including the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, which included the testimony of one of the victims, any error in the admission of the text exchange and related summation comment on it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt … . The circumstantial evidence was compelling, and it led to an inescapable inference that the deceased and surviving victims were shot by defendant, the only other occupant of the car in which the shootings took place. People v Suero, 2018 NY Slip Op 02269, First Dept 3-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S TEXT THAT HE MAY NEED MONEY FOR AN ATTORNEY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS AN INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S TEXT THAT HE MAY NEED MONEY FOR AN ATTORNEY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS AN INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S TEXT THAT HE MAY NEED MONEY FOR AN ATTORNEY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS AN INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))

THE TERMS ‘EVENT OF DEFAULT’ AND ‘DEFAULT’ WHICH APPEARED IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE DEEMED TO MEAN THE SAME THING, BECAUSE THE TERMS WERE DEEMED SYNONYMOUS PLAINTIFF DID NOT MEET ALL THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR STANDING TO SUE, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the derivative action for breach of an Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) was properly dismissed because plaintiffs did not fulfill all of the conditions precedent for bringing the suit, which alleged the defendants’ failure to determine the fair value of a loan. Whether the contractual conditions precedent were met turned on whether the term “event of default” in one provision was synonymous with the term “default” in another provision. Because the two terms were deemed to mean the same thing, a condition precedent for the suit was not met:

Because the uncontroverted and unambiguous documentary evidence demonstrates that plaintiff failed to satisfy the terms of section 7.01(a)(iii) defining the Event of Default here at issue, plaintiff’s compliance with the conditions precedent of section 12.03(c) does not suffice to afford it standing to sue, as it has failed to demonstrate an actionable Event of Default under the PSA. Thus, KeyBank and Berkadia have conclusively established a defense to plaintiff’s asserted claims as a matter of law … and the motion court correctly granted both defendants’ CPLR 3211(a)(1) motions to dismiss. Alden Global Value Recovery Master Fund, L.P. v KeyBank N.A., 2018 NY Slip Op 02241, First Dept 3-29-18

CONTRACT LAW (THE TERMS ‘EVENT OF DEFAULT’ AND ‘DEFAULT’ WHICH APPEARED IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE DEEMED TO MEAN THE SAME THING, BECAUSE THE TERMS WERE DEEMED SYNONYMOUS PLAINTIFF DID NOT MEET ALL THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR STANDING TO SUE, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/DEFAULT (CONTRACT LAW, THE TERMS ‘EVENT OF DEFAULT’ AND ‘DEFAULT’ WHICH APPEARED IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE DEEMED TO MEAN THE SAME THING, BECAUSE THE TERMS WERE DEEMED SYNONYMOUS PLAINTIFF DID NOT MEET ALL THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR STANDING TO SUE, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/EVENT OF DEFAULT (CONTRACT LAW, THE TERMS ‘EVENT OF DEFAULT’ AND ‘DEFAULT’ WHICH APPEARED IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE DEEMED TO MEAN THE SAME THING, BECAUSE THE TERMS WERE DEEMED SYNONYMOUS PLAINTIFF DID NOT MEET ALL THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR STANDING TO SUE, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

APPLYING THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENTIARY STANDARD, THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES’ (DMV’S) SUSPENSION OF PETITIONER BUS DRIVER’S LICENSE BASED UPON STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF THE EXTENT OF THE INJURY OR ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INJURY AND THE PEDESTRIAN’S DEATH A MONTH LATER, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND LICENSE REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, annulling the determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the record did not support the suspension of petitioner-bus-driver’s license for a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1146. The court noted that the standard of proof in the DMV hearing is “clear and convincing” and the standard of proof in the instant Article 78 proceeding is “substantial evidence.” Effectively, therefore, the “clear and convincing” standard applies to the Article 78. Here, on a dark and rainy night, an 88-year-old pedestrian apparently came into contact with the bus in the crosswalk when the bus was turning. The man died a month later. In the opinion of the majority, the hearing evidence did not demonstrate how seriously the man was injured by the bus, or a connection between any injury and the man’s death a month later:

Here, DMV was required to establish that petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(c)(1), which imposes liability on “[a] driver of a motor vehicle who causes serious physical injury as defined in article ten of the penal law to a pedestrian or bicyclist while failing to exercise due care.” The referenced definition of “serious physical injury” includes “physical injury . . . which causes death,” … which is presumably the basis for the charge against petitioner since he was not issued a summons until after the pedestrian died in the hospital. Thus, DMV was required to present clear and convincing evidence of both failure to exercise care and that such failure led to the pedestrian’s demise. * * *

To be sure, one could speculate, as does the dissent, that the pedestrian suffered a “serious physical injury.” But to engage in speculation would be to ignore the underlying standard of clear and convincing evidence, which even the dissent agrees applied in the administrative proceeding and is relevant to our review. “Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that satisfies the factfinder that it is highly probable that what is claimed actually happened . . . and it is evidence that is neither equivocal nor open to opposing presumptions”… . Given that standard, and the remarkable lack of compelling evidence before us, we would be abdicating our role were we simply to defer to the conclusions drawn by the Administrative Law Judge, and raising a serious question as to the very purpose of having any appellate review in this matter. Matter of Seon v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2018 NY Slip Op 02240, First Dept 3-29-18

 

EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant Dominguez’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to the emergency doctrine was properly granted. The court noted that the emergency doctrine usually presents a question of fact but the egregious circumstances warranted summary judgment here. Plaintiff was a passenger in Chuquillanqui’s vehicle which was struck by a car driven by Dominguez:

Dominguez submitted evidence showing that the accident occurred when Chuquillanqui attempted an illegal U-turn from the far-right lane of a two-way road that had two lanes traveling in each direction. Dominguez was operating a vehicle traveling in the same direction as Chuquillanqui’s vehicle, but in the left lane at some distance back from Chuquillanqui’s vehicle. Dominguez testified that he had only had a couple of seconds to react when Chuquillanqui abruptly began the U-turn across his right of way in the left lane, and that he unsuccessfully attempted to avoid the collision by turning his vehicle to the left … .

Plaintiff’s opposition was insufficient to raise factual issues as to whether an emergency situation existed prior to the collision, and as to whether Dominguez’s actions before the accident were reasonable under the circumstances. While the “reasonableness of a defendant driver’s reaction to an emergency is normally left to the trier of fact,” in “egregious circumstances,” as here, the issue may be resolved on summary judgment … . Morales v Chuquillanqui, 2018 NY Slip Op 02139, First Dept 3-27-18

NEGLIGENCE (EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/ TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))

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