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.
Edward MATTERA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC., Defendant-Respondent,
City of New York, et al., Appellants (Action No. 1). Jeremiah KELLEHER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Appellants, Edward Mattera, et al., Defendants (Action No. 2).
In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants City of New York and Edward Snow in Action No. 1 and the defendants City of New York, New York City Police Department, and Edward Snow in Action No. 2 appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated April 8, 1996, as granted the separate motions of the plaintiff in Action No. 1, Edward Mattera, and the plaintiff in Action No. 2, Jeremiah Kelleher, for summary judgment against them on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
Jeremiah Kelleher, a New York City police detective, was a passenger in a car driven by another detective, Edward Snow, responding to the scene of a buy-and-bust operation where a suspect was being held. Snow made a left turn and was struck by an oncoming vehicle driven by Edward Mattera. The detectives' car was unmarked and had no flashing lights or sirens operating.
The Supreme Court properly concluded that Snow's conduct in making a left turn in front of Mattera's oncoming vehicle was negligent as a matter of law (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141; Lester v. Jolicofur, 120 A.D.2d 574, 502 N.Y.S.2d 61; Kiernan v. Edwards, 97 A.D.2d 750, 468 N.Y.S.2d 381; see also, Nunziata v. Birchell, 238 A.D.2d 555, 656 N.Y.S.2d 383). On these facts, the privilege afforded to operators of authorized emergency vehicles engaged in an emergency operation pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 is inapplicable (cf., Williams v. City of New York, 240 A.D.2d 734, 659 N.Y.S.2d 302); this was not such an emergency operation (cf., Mulligan v. City of New York, 245 A.D.2d 277, 664 N.Y.S.2d 484).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 01, 1997
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.
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.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)