Fuchs v. City of N.Y., 2017-11991
| Decision Date | 05 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2017-11991,Index No. 28348/11 |
| Parties | Sara FUCHS, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
186 A.D.3d 459
126 N.Y.S.3d 652 (Mem)
Sara FUCHS, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
2017-11991
Index No. 28348/11
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—February 7, 2020
August 5, 2020
Israel & Lipsky (Powers & Santola, LLP, Albany, N.Y. [Michael J. Hutter ], of counsel), for appellant.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Jeremy W. Shweder and Simcha Rivkin of counsel), for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), dated September 11, 2017. The order granted the motion of the defendants City of New York and New York City Police Department for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when the vehicle she was operating was struck by another vehicle that was being pursued by the police. The street where the accident occurred was a one-way street, and the vehicle that was being pursued by the police struck the plaintiff's vehicle when it turned the wrong way onto the one-way street. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries against the defendants City of New York and the New York City Police Department (hereinafter together the defendants), among others. Following discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 provides a qualified exemption to drivers of authorized emergency vehicles from certain traffic laws when they are involved in an emergency operation (see Frezzell v. City of New York , 24 N.Y.3d 213, 997 N.Y.S.2d 367, 21 N.E.3d 1028 ; Torres v. Saint Vincent's Catholic Med. Ctrs. of N.Y., 117 A.D.3d 717, 717–718, 985 N.Y.S.2d 606 ). Those traffic laws include, inter alia, exceeding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collymore-Maynard v. Gayle-Lyken
...conditions on the road." Fuchs v. City of New York, 57 Mise. 3d 778, 781, 60 N.Y.S.3d 654, 657 [Supreme Court, Kings, 2017), affd, 186 A.D.3d 459, 126 N.Y.S.3d 652 [2nd Dept 2020], Additionally, Lyken did not indicate whether the stop was unexpected due to traffic conditions. Further, Lyken......
-
Ramos v. Cnty. of Suffolk
...authorized emergency vehicles from certain traffic laws When they are involved in an "emergency operation" (see Fuchs v City of New York, 186 A.D.3d 459, 126 N.Y.S.3d 652 [2d Dept 2020]; Anderson v Suffolk County Police Dept., 181 A.D.3d 765, 121 N.Y.S.3d 304 [2d Dept 2020]). An "emergency ......
-
Thompson v. City of New York
...of authorized emergency vehicles from certain traffic laws when they are involved in an emergency operation" ( Fuchs v. City of New York, 186 A.D.3d 459, 459, 126 N.Y.S.3d 652 ; see Frezzell v. City of New York, 24 N.Y.3d 213, 217, 997 N.Y.S.2d 367, 21 N.E.3d 1028 ; Anderson v. Suffolk Coun......
-
Modica v. City of N.Y.
...ordinary negligence" ( Kabir v. County of Monroe, 16 N.Y.3d 217, 220, 920 N.Y.S.2d 268, 945 N.E.2d 461 ; see Fuchs v. City of New York, 186 A.D.3d 459, 126 N.Y.S.3d 652 ; Proce v. Town of Stony Point, 185 A.D.3d 975, 127 N.Y.S.3d 541 ; Reid v. City of New York, 148 A.D.3d 739, 740, 48 N.Y.S......