Cortes v. Edoo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cortes v. Edoo

249 A.D.2d 501, 671 N.Y.S.2d 360

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

DecidedApril 27, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 501 (Cortes v. Edoo) 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

Cortes v. Edoo, 249 A.D.2d 501, 671 N.Y.S.2d 360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In seven related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., Maureen Cortes, Steven Sweeney, Joseph Sweeney, Millard Sweeney, Michael Batalitzky, Jr., Daniel Puerta, Claudina Puerta, Stephanie Rabel, and Josip Matkovic, the plaintiffs in Actions No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) stated portions of a decision of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated January 23, 1997, and (2) so much of an interlocutory judgment of the same court entered April 2, 1997, as dismissed the complaints in Actions No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

In the instant case the vehicle driven by the defendant Nalini Bahadur, and owned by the defendant Scorojnee Edoo, was struck by a vehicle proceeding in the opposite direction which crossed over a double yellow line into her lane of traffic. The defendant Bahadur was presented with an emergency situation and her actions must be judged in that context (see, Williams v Econ, 221 AD2d 429; Mangano v New York City Hous. Auth., 218 AD2d 787; Greifer v Schneider, 215 AD2d 354; Tenenbaum v Martin, 131 AD2d 660). Indeed, a driver faced with an emergency situation is not obligated to exercise her best judgment and an error in judgment is . not to be considered negligence (see, Fermin v Graziosi, 240 AD2d 365; Tenenbaum v Martin, supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly set aside the jury verdict finding the defendants Bahadur and Edoo 50% at fault and in dismissing the complaint as to those defendants.

We find no merit to the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In seven related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., Maureen Cortes, Steven Sweeney, Joseph Sweeney, Millard Sweeney, Michael Batalitzky, Jr., Daniel Puerta, Claudina Puerta, Stephanie Rabel, and Josip Matkovic, the plaintiffs in Actions No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) stated portions of a decision of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated January 23, 1997, and (2) so much of an interlocutory judgment of the same court entered April 2, 1997, as dismissed the complaints in Actions No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

In the instant case the vehicle driven by the defendant Nalini Bahadur, and owned by the defendant Scorojnee Edoo, was struck by a vehicle proceeding in the opposite direction which crossed over a double yellow line into her lane of traffic. The defendant Bahadur was presented with an emergency situation and her actions must be judged in that context (see, Williams v Econ, 221 AD2d 429; Mangano v New York City Hous. Auth., 218 AD2d 787; Greifer v Schneider, 215 AD2d 354; Tenenbaum v Martin, 131 AD2d 660). Indeed, a driver faced with an emergency situation is not obligated to exercise her best judgment and an error in judgment is . not to be considered negligence (see, Fermin v Graziosi, 240 AD2d 365; Tenenbaum v Martin, supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly set aside the jury verdict finding the defendants Bahadur and Edoo 50% at fault and in dismissing the complaint as to those defendants.

We find no merit to the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 501, 671 N.Y.S.2d 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cortes-v-edoo-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack