Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Andrew P. FITZ-GERALD, Appellant, v. Kimberly RICH, et al., Defendants, B.M.W. Financial Services, N.A., Inc., Respondent.
Supreme Court properly denied that part of plaintiff's motion seeking partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against defendant B.M.W. Financial Services, N.A., Inc. (BMW). Plaintiff, a passenger in the back seat of an automobile driven by defendant Mark A. Santomassino, was injured when Santomassino allegedly swerved to avoid a deer and lost control of the automobile. The court properly refused to determine that BMW is vicariously liable as a matter of law, as the owner of the vehicle leased to Santomassino (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388). BMW's liability pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 derives from the alleged negligence of Santomassino, and there are issues of fact concerning his alleged negligence. Whether the emergency doctrine applies is an issue of fact for trial (see, Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 77 N.Y.2d 322, 326-327, 567 N.Y.S.2d 629, 569 N.E.2d 432, rearg. denied 77 N.Y.2d 990, 571 N.Y.S.2d 916, 575 N.E.2d 402; Laylon v. Shaver, 187 A.D.2d 983, 590 N.Y.S.2d 615).
The court also properly denied that part of plaintiff's motion seeking dismissal of BMW's seat belt defense. Although BMW cited an inapplicable section of the Vehicle and Traffic Law in its answer, it provided plaintiff with notice of its intention to rely upon the defense in its amended answer and amended verified bill of particulars. Thus, there is no surprise to plaintiff (see, CPLR 3013). BMW raised an issue of fact whether plaintiff was wearing an available seat belt, thus precluding dismissal of the defense (see generally, Davis v. Hall, 233 A.D.2d 906, 649 N.Y.S.2d 546).
We have examined plaintiff's remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 10, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)