Bicchetti v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bicchetti v. County of Nassau

49 A.D.3d 788, 854 N.Y.2d 401

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 788 (Bicchetti v. County of Nassau) 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

Bicchetti v. County of Nassau, 49 A.D.3d 788, 854 N.Y.2d 401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

An employee of the defendant County of Nassau was operating a vehicle engaged in snow removal operations on a highway. Therefore, his performance of that activity is subject to the standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), which requires due regard for the safety of others and sets a recklessness standard in determining the liability to others arising from the performance of the work. In order for the plaintiff to recover damages for injuries caused by the operation of a vehicle subject to the provisions of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), the plaintiff “must show that the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” (Riley v County of Broome, 95 NY2d 455, 466 [2000] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Levine v GBE Contr. Corp., 2 AD3d 596 [2003]; Farese v Town of Carmel, 296 AD2d 436 [2002]).

The County failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as matter of law by “tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The record presents triable issues of fact as to the County employee’s conduct in the course of plowing snow, thereby precluding summary judgment (see O’Keeffe v State of New York, 40 AD3d 607 [2007]). Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

An employee of the defendant County of Nassau was operating a vehicle engaged in snow removal operations on a highway. Therefore, his performance of that activity is subject to the standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), which requires due regard for the safety of others and sets a recklessness standard in determining the liability to others arising from the performance of the work. In order for the plaintiff to recover damages for injuries caused by the operation of a vehicle subject to the provisions of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), the plaintiff “must show that the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” (Riley v County of Broome, 95 NY2d 455, 466 [2000] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Levine v GBE Contr. Corp., 2 AD3d 596 [2003]; Farese v Town of Carmel, 296 AD2d 436 [2002]).

The County failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as matter of law by “tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The record presents triable issues of fact as to the County employee’s conduct in the course of plowing snow, thereby precluding summary judgment (see O’Keeffe v State of New York, 40 AD3d 607 [2007]). Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 788, 854 N.Y.2d 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bicchetti-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack