FOX v. MCCLELLAN (2022)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he was struck by a vehicle operated by defendant. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was a member of a crew working on a road construction project. Defendant appeals from an order that denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. We affirm.

We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in denying the motion insofar as it sought summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint based on the application of the emergency doctrine. The emergency doctrine “ ‘recognizes that when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context’ ․, provided the actor has not created the emergency” (Caristo v. Sanzone, 96 N.Y.2d 172, 174, 726 N.Y.S.2d 334, 750 N.E.2d 36 [2001]). “The existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a driver's response thereto generally constitute issues of fact” (Dalton v. Lucas, 96 A.D.3d 1648, 1649, 947 N.Y.S.2d 285 [4th Dept. 2012]; see Andrews v. County of Cayuga, 96 A.D.3d 1477, 1479, 947 N.Y.S.2d 698 [4th Dept. 2012]).

In support of his motion, defendant submitted, inter alia, his own deposition testimony, wherein he testified that, while he was driving northbound on the roadway in question, he observed construction work and a dump truck blocking his lane of travel. Defendant then “edged or coasted” up to the dump truck as it was backing into the southbound lane. As he passed the dump truck in the northbound lane, defendant's vehicle struck plaintiff. Defendant conceded that he never observed plaintiff before his vehicle struck plaintiff. We conclude that defendant's submissions failed to establish as a matter of law that he was confronted with a sudden and unexpected emergency situation to which he did not contribute (see White v. Connors, 177 A.D.3d 1250, 1252, 111 N.Y.S.3d 770 [4th Dept. 2019]; Jablonski v. Jakaitis, 85 A.D.3d 969, 970, 926 N.Y.S.2d 137 [2d Dept. 2011]; see also Anderson v. Krauss, 204 A.D.2d 1074, 1075, 612 N.Y.S.2d 521 [4th Dept. 1994]). Thus, the court properly denied that part of defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint pursuant to the emergency doctrine, regardless of the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition papers (see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 [1986]).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they do not warrant modification or reversal of the order.