From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sing-Lam Ng v. Beatty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 30, 2002
300 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-11093

Argued December 2, 2002.

December 30, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gigante, J.), entered November 9, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.

Caesar Napoli, New York, N.Y. (Breakstone Law Firm, P.C. [Jay L. T. Breakstone] of counsel), for appellant.

McCarthy, Small Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (John F. Cahill of counsel), for respondents

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, it was proper for the trial court to instruct the jury on the emergency doctrine (see Kuci v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 88 N.Y.2d 923, 924; Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 77 N.Y.2d 322, 327; cf. Caristo v. Sanzone, 96 N.Y.2d 172, 175). The defendant driver testified that he was driving a vehicle leased from the defendant Ford Motor Credit Co. on the Belt Parkway at approximately 15 miles per hour at a distance of 1 1/2 car lengths, or 25 to 30 feet, from the vehicle in front of his. The plaintiff then pulled in front of his vehicle so closely that the defendant driver could not see the plaintiff's rear bumper. Before the defendant could create a safe distance between his car and the plaintiff's, the plaintiff stopped short in traffic, and the defendant collided with the plaintiff after hitting the brakes. These facts presented an emergency situation not of the defendant's making sufficient to charge the jury with the emergency doctrine (see Kuci v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., supra; Barath v. Marron, 255 A.D.2d 280, 281), and it was for the jury to determine the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct in the face of the emergency (see Kuci v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., supra; Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth., supra).

RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, CRANE and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sing-Lam Ng v. Beatty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 30, 2002
300 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Sing-Lam Ng v. Beatty

Case Details

Full title:SING-LAM NG, appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER BEATTY, ET AL., respondents

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

Date published: Dec 30, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
752 N.Y.S.2d 706

Citing Cases

Figgiani v. Crociata

The dump truck and the plaintiff's vehicle then collided.Under these circumstances, there is a reasonable…

Insinga v. F.C. General Contracting

The defendants F.C. General Contracting and Frank J. Ciliotta also established their prima facie entitlement…