PEOPLE v. VIG (2022)

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the facts, the accusatory instrument is dismissed, and the fine, if paid, is remitted.

Defendant was charged in a simplified traffic information with failing to yield the right of way to an emergency vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1144 [a]). At a nonjury trial, a trooper testified that he was driving in the left lane of the two-lane Sagtikos State Parkway, with his lights and siren on, when he was trapped behind defendant who would not move her vehicle to the right. The trooper testified that he was prevented from moving his vehicle to the right by another vehicle next to him in the right lane. The trooper admitted that he followed defendant “pretty close[ly]” for a quarter mile when she stopped her vehicle in the left lane. The trooper stopped behind defendant, he explained, “for her safety” and, over his vehicle's public address system, ordered her to move the vehicle. She did not, and the trooper had to exit his vehicle, walk to defendant's vehicle and order her to move her vehicle to the grassy median immediately to the left of the lane where she had stopped. Once she did, the trooper ticketed her.

Drivers must yield to emergency vehicles, in particular by moving their vehicle to a different lane and out of the way when an emergency vehicle approaches with its lights flashing (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1144 [a]). However, “[n]o person shall ․ turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [a]). In this case, based upon the trooper's testimony—that his police vehicle was “pretty close” behind defendant's and that he could not move the police vehicle to the right lane because a third vehicle was blocking him from doing so—we do not agree that defendant could have, beyond a reasonable doubt, moved her vehicle to the right lane “with reasonable safety.” According to the trooper's testimony, the only two options available to defendant to switch out of the lane in which she was driving would have been to move into the right lane or move to the left onto the median. Doing the former would have involved possibly cutting off the third vehicle already in that lane; doing the latter would have required her to intentionally drive off the road. Defendant elected neither of these unappealing options. Under the particular circumstances presented, we find that defendant's conviction of failing to yield the right of way to an emergency vehicle was against the weight of the evidence.

In light of the foregoing, defendant's other contentions are rendered academic and we do not pass upon them.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.

DRISCOLL, J.P., GARGUILO and EMERSON, JJ., concur.