LAURICELLA v. McKINNEY (2001)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Erick S. LAURICELLA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Heather A. McKINNEY and Maegen E. Artanis, Defendants-Appellants.

Decided: June 08, 2001

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HAYES, WISNER, SCUDDER and LAWTON, JJ.

Michael C. O'Neill, for defendants-appellants. Courtney c. Genco, for plaintiff-respondent.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that he sustained in a one-car accident in the State of Michigan. 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, 707 N.Y.S.2d 571; see also, Kuci v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 88 N.Y.2d 923, 924, 646 N.Y.S.2d 788, 669 N.E.2d 1110).

Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network