Williams v. Econ
| Decision Date | 13 November 1995 |
| Citation | 633 N.Y.S.2d 392,221 A.D.2d 429 |
| Parties | Pauline WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. Alan ECON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Rivkin, Radler & Kremer, Uniondale (Evan H. Krinick and Cheryl F. Korman, of counsel), for appellant.
Simon & Newman, Forest Hills (Jonathan A. Moore and Merris J. Newman, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and JOY, GOLDSTEIN and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated April 28, 1994, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff and the defendant were travelling in opposite directions on Northern Boulevard in Queens, New York, when the plaintiff's vehicle crossed over a double yellow line and cross-hatched safety zone, entered the defendant's lane and collided with his car head-on. The defendant noticed the oncoming vehicle a fraction of a second before impact and responded by jamming on his brakes. There was no time to sound his horn. The plaintiff had no recollection of how the accident happened, claiming that she suffered from amnesia as a result of the injuries sustained. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. We now reverse.
"While negligence cases do not generally lend themselves to resolution by motion for summary judgment, such a motion will be granted where, as here, the facts clearly point to the negligence of one party without any fault or culpable conduct by the other party" (Morowitz v. Naughton, 150 A.D.2d 536, 537, 541 N.Y.S.2d 122, citing Viegas v. Esposito, 135 A.D.2d 708, 522 N.Y.S.2d 608). It is axiomatic that a driver is not required to anticipate that an automobile going in the opposite direction will cross over into oncoming traffic (see, Tenenbaum v. Martin, 131 A.D.2d 660, 516 N.Y.S.2d 741). A cross-over scenario, as presented in this case, presents an emergency situation and the actions of a driver presented with such a sudden occurrence must be judged in that context (see, Glick v. City of New York, 191 A.D.2d 677, 678, 595 N.Y.S.2d 560).
Here, the defendant was presented with an instantaneous cross-over emergency, not of his own making, and had only a fraction of a second to react. Under no obligation to exercise his best judgment, the defendant applied his brakes and any error in his judgment is not sufficient to constitute negligence (see, Moller v. Lieber, 156 A.D.2d 434, 435, 548 N.Y.S.2d 552). Clearly, the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pelletier v. Lahm
...a full opportunity to reflect on the ongoing situation, which occurred over a span of approximately 15–20 minutes ( cf. Williams v. Econ, 221 A.D.2d 429, 430, 633 N.Y.S.2d 392 [applying the emergency doctrine where the defendant faced “an instantaneous cross-over emergency,” and “had only a......
-
Ming v. Grossman
...v. Amaya,83 A.D.3d 997, 997–998, 922 N.Y.S.2d 472; Tsai v. Zong–Ling Duh,79 A.D.3d 1020, 1022, 913 N.Y.S.2d 748; Williams v. Econ,221 A.D.2d 429, 633 N.Y.S.2d 392). ...
-
Ardila v. Cox
...” ( Gajjar v. Shah, 31 A.D.3d 377, 377–378, 817 N.Y.S.2d 653; see Palma v. Garcia, 52 A.D.3d 795, 861 N.Y.S.2d 113; Williams v. Econ, 221 A.D.2d 429, 633 N.Y.S.2d 392; Greifer v. Schneider, 215 A.D.2d 354, 356, 626 N.Y.S.2d 218). Here, the defendants Balch and Mayer submitted sufficient evi......
-
Caban v. Vega
...did nothing to contribute to, an emergency situation cannot be held liable for the repercussions therefrom (see, e.g., Williams v. Econ, 221 A.D.2d 429, 633 N.Y.S.2d 392; Kuci v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, 219 A.D.2d 486, 631 N.Y.S.2d 163). Significantly, a dri......