Woodard v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 12 October 2010 |
| Parties | Joseph L. WOODARD, appellant, v. Darrell K. THOMAS, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
77 A.D.3d 738
Joseph L. WOODARD, appellant,
v.
Darrell K. THOMAS, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct. 12, 2010.
Geller & Siegel, LLP (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac, & De Cicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Jillian Rosen], of counsel), for appellant.
Billig Law, P.C. New York, N.Y. (Darin Billig of counsel), for respondents.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., PETER B. SKELOS, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated April 24, 2009, which, upon an order of the same court dated January 8, 2009, granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in effect, denying his cross motion to strike the defendants' answer or to compel discovery, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The manner in which an authorized emergency vehicle is operated in an emergency situation may not form the basis for civil liability unless the driver acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104; Saarinen v. Kerr, 84 N.Y.2d 494, 501, 620 N.Y.S.2d 297, 644 N.E.2d 988; Puntarich v. County of Suffolk, 47 A.D.3d 785, 786, 850 N.Y.S.2d 182; Shephard v. City of New York, 39 A.D.3d 842, 835 N.Y.S.2d 297). "The 'reckless disregard' standard requires proof that the [driver] intentionally committed an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow" ( Puntarich, 47 A.D.3d at 786, 850 N.Y.S.2d 182; see Saarinen v. Kerr, 84 N.Y.2d at 501, 620 N.Y.S.2d 297, 644 N.E.2d 988; Shephard, 39 A.D.3d at 842, 835 N.Y.S.2d 297; Badalamenti v. City of New York, 30 A.D.3d 452, 453, 817 N.Y.S.2d 134).
Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. They demonstrated that, at the time of the collision between the vehicle operated by the plaintiff and the ambulance operated by the defendant Darrell K. Thomas and owned by the defendant Associated Ambulance Service, Inc., doing business as American Medical Response, Thomas was "engaged in transporting a sick ... person," such that he was engaged in an "[e]mergency operation" as defined by statute (Vehicle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
VFC Partners 19, LLC v. Romaz Props., Ltd.
...for summary judgment may be uncovered by further discovery is an insufficient basis for denying the motion” (Woodard v. Thomas, 77 AD3d 738 at 740, 913 N.Y.S.2d 103 [2d Dept 2010], quoting, Lopez v. WS Distrib., Inc., 34 AD3d 759, 760, 825 N.Y.S.2d 516 [2d Dept 2006] ; see Friedlander Organ......
-
People's United Bank v. Whitford Dev., Inc.
...for summary judgment may be uncovered' by further discovery is an insufficient basis for denying the motion” (Woodard v. Thomas, 77 AD3d 738 at 740, 913 N.Y.S.2d 103 [2d Dept 2010], quoting, Lopez v. WS Distrib., Inc., 34 AD3d 759, 760, 825 N.Y.S.2d 516;see Friedlander Organization, LLC v. ......
-
Gaudio v. City of N.Y.
...may not form the basis for civil liability unless the driver acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others" ( Woodard v. Thomas, 77 A.D.3d 738, 739, 913 N.Y.S.2d 103 ; see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[e] ; Jobson v. SM Livery, Inc., 175 A.D.3d 1510, 1511, 109 N.Y.S.3d 376 ; Foster ......
-
Suntrust Mortg., Inc. v. Andriopoulos
...for summary judgment may be uncovered' by further discovery is an insufficient basis for denying the motion” (Woodard v. Thomas, 77 AD3d 738 at 740, 913 N.Y.S.2d 103 [2d Dept 2010], quoting, Lopez v. WS Distrib., Inc., 34 AD3d 759, 760, 825 N.Y.S.2d 516;see Friedlander Org., LLC v. Ayorinde......