From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crowner v. King

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 16, 2017
151 A.D.3d 1858 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

06-16-2017

Kimberly CROWNER, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Thomas A. KING, Defendant–Appellant.

Barth Sullivan Behr, Buffalo (Rebecca C. Cronauer of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Greene & Reid, PLLC, Syracuse (Eugene W. Lane of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.


Barth Sullivan Behr, Buffalo (Rebecca C. Cronauer of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Greene & Reid, PLLC, Syracuse (Eugene W. Lane of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that she allegedly sustained when defendant's vehicle struck an ambulance in which plaintiff was riding while acting in the course of her employment as an emergency medical technician and administering emergency care to a patient. In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant, among other things, negligently failed to pull over or yield the right-of-way to the ambulance, which had its emergency lights and siren activated at the time of the accident. Defendant appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted that part of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment on the issues of negligence and proximate cause. Defendant's contention that there is a triable issue of fact whether the ambulance's emergency lights and siren were activated at the time of the accident is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review (see generally British Am. Dev. Corp. v. Schodack Exit Ten, LLC, 83 A.D.3d 1247, 1248, 920 N.Y.S.2d 818 ).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, even assuming, arguendo, that there are triable issues of fact whether the ambulance driver was reckless and whether that recklessness was a proximate cause of the accident, we conclude that they do not preclude plaintiff's entitlement to summary judgment on the issue whether defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, inasmuch as "[i]t was not plaintiff['s] burden to demonstrate that defendant's negligence was the sole proximate cause" (Strauss v. Billig, 78 A.D.3d 415, 415, 909 N.Y.S.2d 724, lv. dismissed 16 N.Y.3d 755, 919 N.Y.S.2d 109, 944 N.E.2d 645 ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.


Summaries of

Crowner v. King

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 16, 2017
151 A.D.3d 1858 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Crowner v. King

Case Details

Full title:Kimberly CROWNER, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Thomas A. KING…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 16, 2017

Citations

151 A.D.3d 1858 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
151 A.D.3d 1858
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 5002

Citing Cases

Buttenschon v. Salatino

In appeal No. 1, respondent appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted the petition seeking to…

Buttenschon v. Salatino

In appeal No. 1, respondent appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted the petition seeking to…