Pena v. Cnty. of Suffolk

• Docket Number: 2021-02128,Index No. 15723/15
• Decision Date: 30 August 2023
• Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 04451
• Parties: Reyna Pena, et al., appellants, v. County of Suffolk, etc., respondent, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2023 NY Slip Op 04451

Reyna Pena, et al., appellants,
v.
County of Suffolk, etc., respondent, et al., defendants.

No. 2021-02128, Index No. 15723/15

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

August 30, 2023

Kardisch Law Group P.C., East Meadow, NY (Josh H. Kardisch of counsel), for appellants.

Dennis Brown, Acting County Attorney, Hauppauge, NY (Diana T. Bishop and Susan A. Flynn of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, PAUL WOOTEN, JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (David T. Reilly, J.), dated February 23, 2021. The order granted the motion of the defendant County of Suffolk for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On February 23, 2014, a police officer employed by the Suffolk County Police Department (hereinafter the SCPD) observed a vehicle operated by nonparty Pedro Hernandez traveling east in the westbound lanes of Route 347. The officer activated the lights and siren on his vehicle and followed Hernandez's vehicle at a high rate of speed in an attempt to stop the vehicle. During the chase, Hernandez's vehicle collided with a vehicle occupied by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs commenced this action against, among others, the defendant County of Suffolk, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries they allegedly sustained in the accident. The County thereafter moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. In an order dated February 23, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiffs appeal.

"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" (Fuchs v City of New York, 186 A.D.3d 459, 459; see Frezzell v City of New York, 24 N.Y.3d 213). "Those traffic laws include, inter alia, exceeding the speed limit and disregarding regulations governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions" (Fuchs v City of New York, 186 A.D.3d at 459-460, citing Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[a], [b]). Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e), however, provides that "[t]he foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the...