Alebrande v. DeGennaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alebrande v. DeGennaro

187 A.D.2d 358, 590 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13046

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 17, 1992·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered May 26, 1992, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This is a negligence case involving a traffic accident at an intersection. It is not dispositive that defendant-appellant had the green light in his favor (Costalas v City of New York, 143 AD2d 573, 575). Here, there is a question as to whether or not defendant-appellant acted reasonably under the circumstances, which cannot be decided as a matter of law (see, Garcia v J.C. Duggan, Inc., 180 AD2d 579, 580).

Defendant-appellant’s argument under the "emergency doctrine” (Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 326) is concededly made for the first time on appeal, and we therefore do not reach its merits (City of New York v Stack, 178 AD2d 355, lv denied 80 NY2d 753). Were we to reach its merits, we would reject defendant-appellant’s argument. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered May 26, 1992, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This is a negligence case involving a traffic accident at an intersection. It is not dispositive that defendant-appellant had the green light in his favor (Costalas v City of New York, 143 AD2d 573, 575). Here, there is a question as to whether or not defendant-appellant acted reasonably under the circumstances, which cannot be decided as a matter of law (see, Garcia v J.C. Duggan, Inc., 180 AD2d 579, 580).

Defendant-appellant’s argument under the "emergency doctrine” (Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 326) is concededly made for the first time on appeal, and we therefore do not reach its merits (City of New York v Stack, 178 AD2d 355, lv denied 80 NY2d 753). Were we to reach its merits, we would reject defendant-appellant’s argument. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Alebrande v. DeGennaro, 187 A.D.2d 358, 590 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

187 A.D.2d 358 (Alebrande v. DeGennaro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related