Opinion
11-18-2015
WU KAI MING, appellant, v. Dennis L. GROSSMAN, respondent.
Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant. Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Westbury, N.Y. (Francis J. Scahill and Andrea E. Ferrucci of counsel), for respondent. WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant.
Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Westbury, N.Y. (Francis J. Scahill and Andrea E. Ferrucci of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated December 3, 2014, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
This action arises from a motor vehicle collision which occurred when the defendant, who was operating his vehicle on an exit ramp off the Grand Central Parkway, was allegedly suddenly and without warning cut off by a sedan which veered in front of him, blocking both lanes of travel on the ramp. The defendant applied his brakes hard and swerved to the right, thereby avoiding a collision with the sedan, but the defendant's vehicle was then struck in the rear by the plaintiff's minivan, which had been traveling in the right lane of the ramp and was unable to stop in time. The Supreme Court subsequently granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis of the emergency doctrine. We affirm.
12 The emergency doctrine acknowledges that when an actor is confronted with a sudden and unanticipated situation which leaves little or no time for deliberation and requires him to make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be liable for negligence if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent when evaluated in the context of the emergency conditions (see Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 77 N.Y.2d 322, 327, 567 N.Y.S.2d 629, 569 N.E.2d 432; Amaro v. City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 30, 36, 386 N.Y.S.2d 19, 351 N.E.2d 665; Marri v. New York City Tr. Auth., 106 A.D.3d 699, 700, 963 N.Y.S.2d 736). Under appropriate circumstances, the existence of an emergency, as well as the reasonableness of the actor's response to it, may be determined as a matter of law (see Majid v. New York City Tr. Auth., 128 A.D.3d 648, 649, 8 N.Y.S.3d 432; Bello v. Transit Auth. of N.Y. City, 12 A.D.3d 58, 60, 783 N.Y.S.2d 648).
3 Here, the defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the parties' deposition testimony and other evidence demonstrating that he was confronted with an emergency when the sedan cut in front of him and blocked both lanes of travel, and that his response of applying his brakes and swerving to the right was reasonable in the context of the emergency (see e.g. Majid v. New York City Tr. Auth., 128 A.D.3d 648, 8 N.Y.S.3d 432; Eng v. MTA Bus Co., 124 A.D.3d 833, 1 N.Y.S.3d 374; Flores v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth. Long Is. Bus, 122 A.D.3d 672, 996 N.Y.S.2d 184; Kong v. MTA Bus Co., 112 A.D.3d 581, 975 N.Y.S.2d 914; Marri v. New York City Tr. Auth., 106 A.D.3d 699, 963 N.Y.S.2d 736; Kenney v. County of Nassau, 93 A.D.3d 694, 940 N.Y.S.2d 130; Ardila v. Cox, 88 A.D.3d 829, 931 N.Y.S.2d 120; Evans v. Bosl, 75 A.D.3d 491, 905 N.Y.S.2d 254; Miloscia v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 70 A.D.3d 904, 896 N.Y.S.2d 109; Roviello v. Schoolman Transp. Sys. Inc., 10 A.D.3d 356, 780 N.Y.S.2d 295). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and his speculative assertions that the defendant may have contributed to the accident or may have been able to avoid it were insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see generally Kenney v. County of Nassau, 93 A.D.3d at 696, 940 N.Y.S.2d 130; Ferebee v. Amaya, 83 A.D.3d 997, 997–998, 922 N.Y.S.2d 472; Tsai v. Zong–Ling Duh, 79 A.D.3d 1020, 1022, 913 N.Y.S.2d 748; Williams v. Econ, 221 A.D.2d 429, 633 N.Y.S.2d 392).