From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Molinari v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 27, 1999
267 A.D.2d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued November 19, 1999

December 27, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barbaro, J.), dated June 16, 1998, as, upon a jury verdict finding it 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, and awarding the plaintiff damages in the total sum of $6,390,000, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Jane S. Earle of counsel), for appellant.

Richard P. Broder, P.C., Garden City, N.Y., for respondent.

WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

A police officer's conduct in pursuing a suspected lawbreaker may not form the basis of civil liability to an injured third party unless the officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[e]; Saarinen v. Kerr, 84 N.Y.2d 494, 501 ; Fioriello v. Sasson, 255 A.D.2d 549 ; DeMutiis v. City of New York, 253 A.D.2d 734 ; Mulligan v. City of New York, 245 A.D.2d 277 ; Williams v. City of New York, 240 A.D.2d 734 ). The "reckless disregard" standard requires evidence that the actor 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 (see, Szczerbiak v. Pilat, 90 N.Y.2d 553, 557 ; Saarinen v. Kerr, 84 N.Y.2d 494, 501 ;Campbell v. City of Elmira, 84 N.Y.2d 505, 510 ).

The plaintiff police officer testified at trial that he and his partner were responding to a radio report of a robbery in progress when the accident occurred. Since the officers were thus engaged in an "emergency operation" as defined by statute (see, Krug v. Jones, 252 A.D.2d 572 ; Phoenix Garden Rest. v. Chu, 245 A.D.2d 164 ).

O'BRIEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Molinari v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 27, 1999
267 A.D.2d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Molinari v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW MOLINARI, respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 27, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
700 N.Y.S.2d 489

Citing Cases

Shephard v. Cty. of N.Y

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant City of New York…

Roldan v. County of Suffolk

The standard of reckless disregard for the safety of others requires evidence that "the actor has…