From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Felder v. Carolina Freight Carriers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 18, 1989
156 A.D.2d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

December 18, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We find no error in the court's refusal to charge the emergency doctrine (see, PJI 2:14) in this case. The drivers of the vehicles involved in this three-vehicle, pile-up collision were not presented with any sudden and unforeseen condition. They should reasonably have anticipated and been prepared to deal with the situation with which they were confronted (see, McCarthy v Miller, 139 A.D.2d 500; Hardy v Sicuranza, 133 A.D.2d 138; Kowchefski v Urbanowicz, 102 A.D.2d 863).

We also find no error in the court's missing witness charge as to Gary Felder. Since Felder was the driver of the second vehicle, which was owned by the Clarkes, he was in a position to give substantial, and not merely cumulative, testimony; and, since he was the brother-in-law of Dolores Clarke, he could be considered to be available to her (see, Noce v Kaufman, 2 N.Y.2d 347; Ausch v St. Paul Fire Mar. Ins. Co., 125 A.D.2d 43; Chandler v Flynn, 111 A.D.2d 300).

We have examined the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Felder v. Carolina Freight Carriers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 18, 1989
156 A.D.2d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Felder v. Carolina Freight Carriers

Case Details

Full title:GARY FELDER, Plaintiff, and MILTON CLARKE et al., Respondents, v. CAROLINA…

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

Date published: Dec 18, 1989

Citations

156 A.D.2d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
548 N.Y.S.2d 809

Citing Cases

Mead v. Marino

The sole explanation proffered by the defendants was that she was faced with an emergency situation which…

Goldstein v. U.S.

Nor is Rivera necessarily entitled to an emergency defense since the weight of the evidence established that…