SARANITI v. BRODY TRUCK RENTAL INC (2000)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated December 10, 1998, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 The plaintiff Stephen Saraniti (hereinafter the plaintiff) was injured when an unidentified vehicle side-swiped his vehicle, causing the plaintiff's vehicle to cross a double yellow line and strike a truck.   The truck was driven by an employee of the defendant Gleot Corporation, d/b/a Martin Paint Stores, and owned by the defendant Brody Truck Rental, Inc.   The truck driver applied his brakes immediately upon observing the plaintiff's vehicle traveling toward him, but was unable to avoid the collision.

 A driver is not required to anticipate that an automobile traveling in the opposite direction will cross over into oncoming traffic (see, Bentley v. Moore, 251 A.D.2d 612, 675 N.Y.S.2d 108;  Koch v. Levenson, 225 A.D.2d 592, 638 N.Y.S.2d 785;  Tenenbaum v. Martin, 131 A.D.2d 660, 516 N.Y.S.2d 741).   Indeed, such a cross-over scenario presents an emergency situation, and the driver's actions must be judged in that context (see, Koch v. Levenson, supra;  Mangano v. New York City Hous. Auth., 218 A.D.2d 787, 631 N.Y.S.2d 54;  Greifer v. Schneider, 215 A.D.2d 354, 626 N.Y.S.2d 218;  Glick v. City of New York, 191 A.D.2d 677, 595 N.Y.S.2d 560).   Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.