A plaintiff passenger in a vehicle accident is not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of right against a defendant driver on the issue of liability. Sec Martinez v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 295 A.D.2d 408, 409, 744 N.Y.S.2d 44, 45-46 (2002) (denying summary judgment to injured plaintiff passenger on liability because triable issues of fact regarding the circumstances of the accident and driver's liability);Singh v. Sanders, 286 A.D.2d 256, 257, 729 N.Y.S.2d 119, 119-120 (N.Y.App.Div. 2001) (denying summary judgment to injured plaintiff passenger on the issue of liability because there were triable issues of fact as to whether the vehicle in which he was a passenger was in good mechanical condition); Sacco. v. Phillippsen, 272 A.D.2d 889, 889, 707 N.Y.S.2d 571, 572 (N.Y.App.Div. 2000) (denying plaintiff passenger summary judgment on the issue of liability against defendant driver who struck a utility pole because whether the defendant's conduct was reasonable or whether the circumstances constituted an emergency were issues for the trier of fact); Johnson v. Phillips, 261 A.D.2d 269, 272, 690 N.Y.S.2d 545, 548 (N.Y. A.D. 1999) (injured occupants of the front vehicle in a rear-end collision case entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability, unless the driver in the following vehicle provides an innocent explanation for the event); Mundo v. City of Yonkers, 249 A.D.2d 522, 672 N.Y.S.2d 128 (N.Y.App.Div. 1998) (because there were issues of fact regarding the circumstances of an accident, injured passengers not entitled to summary judgment against defendant drivers on the issue of liability). A plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of negligence with proof that defendant's vehicle rear-ended plaintiff's vehicle, or where there is no dispute to that effect.
The Supreme Court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that the emergency doctrine was applicable. There are issues of fact as to whether Garrison was faced with an emergency and, if so, whether she acted reasonably under the circumstances (see, Streicker v. Adir Rent A Car, 279 A.D.2d 385; Sacco v. Phillippsen, 272 A.D.2d 889; Finnegan v. Martinez, 258 A.D.2d 557). ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, McGINITY and COZIER, JJ., concur.
The automobile in which plaintiff was a passenger struck a pool of water during a heavy rainstorm, spun out of control and rolled over. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the "sudden emergency doctrine" under Michigan Law ( see, Moore v. Spangler, 401 Mich. 360, 382-383, 258 N.W.2d 34, 43; Vander Laan v. Miedema, 385 Mich. 226, 231-232, 188 N.W.2d 564, 567). Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Whether the circumstances constituted a "sudden emergency" and whether defendants' conduct was reasonable in light of those circumstances are issues for the trier of fact ( see, Sacco v. Phillippsen, 272 A.D.2d 889; see also, Kuci v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 88 N.Y.2d 923, 924).