VANEPPS v. MANCUSO WNY (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion in part and reinstating the complaint except insofar as the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, alleges that defendants were negligent in failing to provide seatbelts, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Helene F. VanEpps in a single-vehicle accident involving a limousine bus owned by defendant David D. Mancuso, doing business as Mancuso Country Auto and doing business as Mancuso Limousines & Buses of WNY, and operated by defendant Joshua D. Wahl. We agree with plaintiffs that Supreme Court erred in granting that part of defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on application of the emergency doctrine. “ ‘The existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a driver's response thereto generally constitute issues of fact’ ” (Baldauf v. Gambino, 177 A.D.3d 1307, 1309, 111 N.Y.S.3d 773 [4th Dept. 2019]; see White v. Connors, 177 A.D.3d 1250, 1252, 111 N.Y.S.3d 770 [4th Dept. 2019]). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that “whether the emergency doctrine precludes liability presents a question of fact and, therefore, summary judgment for defendants ․ was inappropriate” (Green v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth. Bus Co., 26 N.Y.3d 1061, 1062, 23 N.Y.S.3d 145, 44 N.E.3d 220 [2015]).

We note, however, that the court also granted that part of defendants' motion seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' claim that defendants were negligent in failing to provide seatbelts on the ground that defendants were under no duty to do so. Plaintiffs failed to brief any argument with respect to the dismissal of that claim, thereby abandoning any challenge to that part of the order (see generally Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, 984, 609 N.Y.S.2d 745 [4th Dept. 1994]). We therefore modify the order by denying the motion in part and reinstating the complaint except insofar as the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, alleges that defendants were negligent in failing to provide seatbelts.