From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bentley v. Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1998
251 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 29, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Jonathan A. Moore was driving his automobile northbound on Guinea Woods Road. Janice L. Bentley was driving southbound in a Volvo registered to Volvo Finance of North America, Inc. (hereinafter Volvo). Moore's vehicle crossed over into the southbound lane and a collision occurred. Moore told the police that he did not know how the accident occurred and, in his deposition, he testified that he lost consciousness prior to the collision. Bentley testified that she had her foot on the brake and was stopped at a traffic light.

It is axiomatic that a driver is not required to anticipate that an automobile traveling in the opposite direction will cross over into oncoming traffic ( see, Velez v. Diaz, 227 A.D.2d 615; Koch v. Levenson, 225 A.D.2d 592; Greifer v. Schneider, 215 A.D.2d 354; Tenenbaum v. Martin, 131 A.D.2d 660). Indeed, such a scenario presents an emergency situation, and the actions of the driver presented with such a situation must be judged in that context ( see, Koch v. Levenson, supra; Mangano v. New York City Hous. Auth., 218 A.D.2d 787; Greifer v. Schneider, supra; Glick v. City of New York, 191 A.D.2d 677).

Here, it was undisputed that Moore crossed over into the southbound lane. As Moore could not remember what happened and the police report was inadmissible as to whether Bentley's vehicle was in motion, no evidence was presented in admissible form to refute Bentley's testimony that her vehicle was stopped. In any event, even if Bentley's vehicle was in motion, since the collision occurred within five seconds from the time she first saw Moore's vehicle, Bentley was not obligated to exercise her best, judgment and any error in her judgment was not sufficient to constitute negligence ( see, Stevens v. Kirby, 86 A.D.2d 391; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v. Olephant, 81 A.D.2d 886; Greifer v. Schneider, supra).

Moore's remaining contentions are without merit.

Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bentley v. Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1998
251 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Bentley v. Moore

Case Details

Full title:JANICE L. BENTLEY, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN A. MOORE, Defendant. (Action No…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 29, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
675 N.Y.S.2d 108

Citing Cases

Wemyss v. Ruszczyk

The emergency doctrine applies only to circumstances where a party is confronted by a sudden and unforseen…

Wade v. Knight Transp., Inc.

Here, the Knight defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by…