From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stoebe v. Norton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 27, 2000
278 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued December 7, 2000.

December 27, 2000.

In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., which were joined for trial, Edmund Stoebe, the plaintiff in Action No. 1, Maria Teleshova, a defendant in Action Nos. 1 and 3 and the plaintiff in Action No. 2, and Gina Norton and Donald E. Norton, defendants in all three actions, separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated October 4, 1999, which granted the motion of Lisa Bergamini and Joseph Bergamini, defendants in all three actions, for summary judgment dismissing the complaints and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis Fishlinger, Garden City, N.Y. (Kathleen D. Foley of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant Edmund Stoebe.

Scheine, Fusco, Brandenstein Rada, P.C. (Law Offices of Raymond Carey, P.C., Woodbury, N.Y., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant Maria Teleshova.

Robert P. Tusa (Sweetbaum Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N Y [Marshall D. Sweetbaum] of counsel), for defendants-appellants Gina Norton and Donald E. Norton.

Kelly, Rode Kelly, LLP (Rivkin, Radler Kremer, LLP, Uniondale, N Y [Evan H. Krinick and Cheryl F. Korman] of counsel), for defendants-respondents Lisa Bergamini and Joseph Bergamini.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants Edmund Stoebe and Maria Teleshova separately commenced Actions Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to recover damages for personal injuries they allegedly sustained when a vehicle operated by Teleshova crossed over into the opposing lane of traffic and collided with a vehicle owned by the respondent Joseph Bergamini and driven by the respondent Lisa Bergamini in which Stoebe was a passenger. The appellants contend that Lisa Bergamini was negligent in operating the vehicle because she failed to take measures to avoid the accident and/or contributed to the happening of the accident.

The respondents established that since Teleshova suddenly crossed over into Lisa Bergamini's lane of traffic, the emergency doctrine applies and Bergamini's actions must be judged in that context (see, Turner v. Mongitore, 274 A.D.2d 512 [2d Dept., July 24, 2000]; Bentley v. Moore, 251 A.D.2d 612, 613). The appellants, however, failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether Lisa Bergamini's reaction to the emergency was unreasonable, or if any negligence on her part prior to the cross-over contributed to bringing about the emergency (see, Koch v. Levenson, 225 A.D.2d 592, 593; Lackner v. Roth, 166 A.D.2d 686, 687; Moller v. Lieber, 156 A.D.2d 434, 435). Accordingly, the respondents were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaints and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.


Summaries of

Stoebe v. Norton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 27, 2000
278 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Stoebe v. Norton

Case Details

Full title:EDMUND STOEBE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. GINA NORTON, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Dec 27, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
718 N.Y.S.2d 642

Citing Cases

White v. Gooding

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of negligence on the part of the defendant based on the deposition…

Viera v. Lexington Leasing Co.

In addition, it is well settled that, under the emergency doctrine, "a driver is not required to anticipate…