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

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 17, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 358 (Alebrande v. DeGennaro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 358, 590 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alebrande-v-degennaro-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack