From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rocourt v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 1997
239 A.D.2d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 5, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment. The moped ridden by the infant plaintiff, which was traveling northbound, abruptly crossed over and entered the southbound lane directly in front of the respondent's automobile and the two vehicles collided. Despite the plaintiffs' attempts to assert a triable issue of fact by claiming that the respondent was negligent in failing to observe the moped in time to avoid the collision, the record does not support this contention ( see, Eisenbach v. Rogers, 158 A.D.2d 792, 793). Faced with an emergency situation and not driving in a reckless manner or otherwise acting negligently, the respondent's reaction to the situation was reasonable and the collision was unavoidable ( see, e.g., Cohen v. Masten, 203 A.D.2d 774, 775-776).

Rosenblatt, J.P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rocourt v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 1997
239 A.D.2d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Rocourt v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:SERGE ROCOURT, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of…

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

Date published: May 5, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
657 N.Y.S.2d 759

Citing Cases

Mingino v. Sqourdos

The Kings Plaza/Koss Motion It is well-settled that a driver is not required to anticipate that an automobile…

Cotty v. Town of Southampton

Here, it is determined, and the record supports, that defendant Schmidt was faced with an emergency…