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.
Maureen COLLETTI, et al., appellants, v. Eileen PEREIRA, et al., defendants, William A. Butler, Jr., respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated January 31, 2008, as, upon reargument and renewal, granted the motion of the defendant William A. Butler, Jr., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
William A. Butler, Jr., a volunteer emergency medical technician for the LaGrange Fire District, was paged to an accident at 1:40 A.M. on July 25, 2002. He was traveling to the site of the accident in his vehicle, northbound on Route 82, a winding mountain road, at or near the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit, with his emergency vehicle blue strobe light illuminated. Upon emerging from a curve, he saw the plaintiffs' vehicle. Butler pushed down on his brakes, but was unable to come to a complete stop. His car skidded approximately two car lengths and struck the plaintiffs' vehicle in the rear.
The Supreme Court properly determined that Butler established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Butler acted with “willful negligence or malfeasance” (General Municipal Law § 205-b; see Tobacco v. North Babylon Fire Dept., 251 A.D.2d 398, 674 N.Y.S.2d 125) or with “reckless disregard for the safety of others” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[e]; see Szczerbiak v. Pilat, 90 N.Y.2d 553, 557, 664 N.Y.S.2d 252, 686 N.E.2d 1346; Saarinen v. Kerr, 84 N.Y.2d 494, 620 N.Y.S.2d 297, 644 N.E.2d 988; Campbell v. City of Elmira, 84 N.Y.2d 505, 620 N.Y.S.2d 302, 644 N.E.2d 993; DiFranco v. Essig, 2 A.D.3d 669, 768 N.Y.S.2d 633; Powell v. City of Mount Vernon, 228 A.D.2d 572, 644 N.Y.S.2d 766).
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: April 21, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet 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)