Opinion
Index No. 515004/2021 Mot. Seq. No. 002 NYSCEF Doc. No. 36
12-06-2024
JASON NEGRON, Plaintiff, v. BAILEY DAMANN and GLOBAL MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC., Defendants.
Unpublished Opinion
DECISION AND ORDER
HON. CAROLYN E. WADE, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219 (a), of the electronic papers considered in the review of Plaintiff Jason Negron's ("Plaintiff') for summary judgment and other relief:
Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support, and Exhibits Annexed: NYSCEF #23-28
Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits Annexed: NYS CEF #31-21
Reply Affirmation: NYSCEF #33-34
Proposed Orders NYSCEF# 35-36
Upon the foregoing papers, and after oral argument, Plaintiff Jason Negron's ("Plaintiff') motion for an order; (a) granting Plaintiff partial summary judgment against Defendants Bailey Damann ("Damann") and Global Medical Response, Inc. ("Global Medical") (collectively, ("Defendants") on the issue of liability, (b) dismissing Defendants' affirmative defenses alleging comparative negligence, contributory negligence and culpable conduct of Plaintiff, and (c) upon granting summary judgment, setting this action down for a trial on the assessment of damages as against said defendant, is DENIED .
Background
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained on April 22, 2020, when an ambulance operated by Damann made contact with his vehicle near the intersection of 18th Street and 3rd Avenue in Brooklyn, New York.
At the time of the accident, Damann was traveling northbound on 3 rd Avenue, while Plaintiff was traveling westbound on 18th Street. It is undisputed that the accident occurred during "daytime," and that the weather was "sunny."
According to Damann's testimony, shortly before the accident, his vision became suddenly and unexpectedly impaired because there was a glare from the sun. As a result, Damaim was unable to notice that the traffic light was red (Exhibit "1" at 57:11-14).
As soon as Damann realized that he had run a red light and that he was about to make contact with Plaintiffs vehicle, he "engaged defensive maneuvers" but was unable to avoid the contact. Dam aim does not recall if the visor was down when the accident occurred.
Analysis
Since it is undisputed that Damann ran the red light, Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that Defendants violated VTL §§ 1110(a) and 1111(d).
In opposition, Defendants raised triable issues of fact as to whether the sun glare that impaired Damann's vision constitutes a qualifying emergency. The emergency doctrine precludes liability for a driver who faces an "unexpected circumstance which [left] little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration," and takes action that is "reasonable and prudent in the [. . .] context" of the emergency at hand (Caristo v. Sansone, 96 N.Y.2d 172, 174 [2001]; Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth, 77 N.Y.2d 322, 327 [1991]).
In Lifson v. City of Syracuse, tire Court of Appeals expressly left open the possibility that sun glare may generate an emergency situation that would preclude liability under the emergency doctrine (17 N.Y.3d 492, 498 [2011]). Familiarity with the general area of the accident and the direction at which the defendant was driving are relevant factors in determining whether sun glare constitutes a qualifying emergency. Id.
Here, Damann testified that he was not "familiar with 18th Street and 3rd Avenue," and that he was unable to notice the color of the traffic light because his vision became suddenly and unexpectedly impaired due to sun glare. Damann further testified that he was driving northbound, that he does not recall if the visor was down at the time of the accident, and that he "engaged defensive maneuvers" as soon as his vision was no longer impaired.
Although the passenger who was sitting next to Damann noted the red light at some unspecified point before the impact, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Defendants as the non-moving parties; it is reasonable to infer that Damann had already entered the intersection at. that time with his vision being impaired due the sudden sun glare (Singleton v. New York City Housing Auth., 200 A.D.2d 732, 733 [2d Dept 1994] ["In reviewing an order granting summary judgment, the evidentiary facts alleged by the party opposing the motion and the inferences which may be drawn from them must be accepted as true."]).
This case is analogous to Lupercio v. Pappas, 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 15329 [Sup Ct, Queens Cty, Dec. 11, 2019]. There, as here, the defendant asserted that sun glare "temporarily blinded her when she madea left turn and her vision was so obstructed as to block all vision of the roadway in front of her and her vehicle accidentally struck pedestrian plaintiff," Id. at *4. Citing Lifson, the Lupercio court found that the defendants "have raised triable issues of fset as to whether the suit glare was a sudden and unexpected circumstance generating an emergency situation at the time of the accident and if so, whether defendant's actions were reasonable and prudent in the emergency context." Id.
As in Lupercio, Defendants have raised triable issues of fact as to: (1) whether the sun glare that temporarily blinded Damann who was driving northbound constitutes a sudden and unexpected circumstance generating an emergency situation, (2) whether Damann acted reasonably under the circumstances. Id.; Lifson, 17 N.Y.3d at 498; Kiranjeet Kaur, 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 27612, at *2. Consequently, the branch of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied. However, the branch of the motion to dismiss Defendants' affirmative defenses, alleging comparative negligence, contributory negligence and culpable conduct of Plaintiff is granted, as there is no evidence that Plaintiff was negligent. Specifically, Plaintiff has a steady green light as he entered the subject intersection, as opposed to a green light.
Conclusion
Accordingly, based upon the above, Plaintiffs motion is granted to the extent that the affirmative defenses, alleging comparative negligence, contributory negligence and culpable conduct of Plaintiff, are hereby dismissed. The balance of Plaintiff s motion is denied .
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.