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.
Beduina LOPEZ, as Administratrix of the Estate of Carlos Manuel Rivera Cruz, a/k/a Carlos Manuel Cruz Rivera, Deceased, Respondent, v. TOWN OF GATES, Appellant, et al., Defendant. (Action No. 1.)
Beduina LOPEZ, as Administratrix of the Estate of Carlos Manuel Rivera Cruz, a/k/a Carlos Manuel Cruz Rivera, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. John DOE, et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)
William E. PUGH and Dolores M. Pugh, Respondents, v. TOWN OF GATES, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 3.)
These consolidated actions arise out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred following a police chase through a suburban business district on Route 31 in the Town of Gates. Plaintiff Beduina Lopez's decedent was a passenger in the vehicle that was allegedly being pursued by Gates police officers when it collided with a vehicle occupied by plaintiffs William E. and Dolores M. Pugh. Defendant Town of Gates (Town) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaints against it in actions No. 1 and No. 3 on the ground that, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, it is not subject to civil liability.
Supreme Court properly denied the motion. The Town presented evidence that its officers never exceeded 60 miles per hour and that they broke off the chase well before the collision occurred. Plaintiffs, however, submitted proof that the average speed of the pursuing officers exceeded 90 miles per hour and that the collision occurred within moments after they terminated the pursuit. That conflicting evidence raises triable issues of fact whether the officers acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others (see, Sisson v. Baritot, 245 A.D.2d 1084, 666 N.Y.S.2d 85; McKenica v. City of Tonawanda, 239 A.D.2d 951, 661 N.Y.S.2d 814; Schaeffer v. DiDomenico, 238 A.D.2d 931, 661 N.Y.S.2d 154) and, if so, whether the recklessness of the officers was a proximate cause of the accident (see, Mercado v. Vega, 77 N.Y.2d 918, 920, 569 N.Y.S.2d 595, 572 N.E.2d 36; cf., Mullane v. City of Amsterdam, 212 A.D.2d 848, 850, 622 N.Y.S.2d 346).
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 29, 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)