Opinion
01-18-2017
Christopher L. PITT, respondent, v. Adam MROZ, et al., appellants.
Leon R. Kowalski (McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho, NY [Ross P. Masler ], of counsel), for appellants. Hach & Rose, LLP, New York, NY (Michael A. Rose and Robert F. Garnsey of counsel), for respondent.
Leon R. Kowalski (McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho, NY [Ross P. Masler ], of counsel), for appellants.
Hach & Rose, LLP, New York, NY (Michael A. Rose and Robert F. Garnsey of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated November 24, 2015, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The operator of a vehicle who becomes involved in an accident as the result of suffering a sudden medical emergency will not be chargeable with negligence as long as the emergency was unforeseen (see Serpas v. Bell, 117 A.D.3d 712, 713, 985 N.Y.S.2d 288 ; Doran v. Wells, 101 A.D.3d 937, 957 N.Y.S.2d 249 ; Romero v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 25 A.D.3d 683, 684, 811 N.Y.S.2d 692 ; State of New York v. Susco, 245 A.D.2d 854, 855, 666 N.Y.S.2d 321 ; Thomas v. Hulslander, 233 A.D.2d 567, 568, 649 N.Y.S.2d 252 ; Abish v. Cetta, 155 A.D.2d 495, 547 N.Y.S.2d 358 ). Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, because they did not come forward with competent or expert medical evidence to establish the existence of the claimed medical emergency and its unforeseeable nature (see Serpas v. Bell, 117 A.D.3d at 713, 985 N.Y.S.2d 288 ). Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ).