Bliss v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bliss v. State

272 A.D.2d 567, 709 N.Y.S.2d 417

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

DocketClaim No. 96039

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 567 (Bliss v. State) 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

Bliss v. State, 272 A.D.2d 567, 709 N.Y.S.2d 417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated December 21, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim and denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and to dismiss the defendants’ affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and failure to wear a seat belt.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Claims correctly determined that the “reckless disregard” standard set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) is the same as that set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) (see, Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553; Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494). Further, the court properly concluded that under the circumstances of this case, that standard was not met, and the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claim (see, Bliss v State of New York, 179 Misc 2d 549).

The claimants’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Feuerstein, JJ., concur. [See, 179 Misc 2d 549.]

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

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated December 21, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim and denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and to dismiss the defendants’ affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and failure to wear a seat belt.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Claims correctly determined that the “reckless disregard” standard set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) is the same as that set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) (see, Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553; Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494). Further, the court properly concluded that under the circumstances of this case, that standard was not met, and the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claim (see, Bliss v State of New York, 179 Misc 2d 549).

The claimants’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Feuerstein, JJ., concur. [See, 179 Misc 2d 549.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 567, 709 N.Y.S.2d 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bliss-v-state-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack