As the Court of Appeals has made clear, the reckless disregard standard "demands more than a showing of a lack of ‘due care under the circumstances’—the showing typically associated with ordinary negligence claims" ( Saarinen v. Kerr , 84 N.Y.2d 494, 501, 620 N.Y.S.2d 297, 644 N.E.2d 988 [1994] ). Rather, liability under the reckless disregard standard "is established upon a showing that the covered vehicle's operator has intentionally done 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 and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome" ( Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Dept. , 25 N.Y.3d 1102, 1105, 35 N.E.3d 448 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeAlexandra R. v. Krone , 186 A.D.3d 981, 982, 129 N.Y.S.3d 579 [4th Dept. 2020], appeal dismissed 36 N.Y.3d 933, 135 N.Y.S.3d 663, 160 N.E.3d 321 [2020], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 907, 2021 WL 4164486 [2021] ). Here, the evidence submitted by defendant established that he was traveling no more than 70 miles per hour when responding to the emergency, and that the posted speed limit in the area is 55 miles per hour.