Crowner v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crowner v. King

2017 NY Slip Op 5002, 151 A.D.3d 1858, 54 N.Y.S.3d 267

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

DecidedJune 16, 2017

Docket811 CA 16-01559

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5002 (Crowner v. King) 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

Crowner v. King, 2017 NY Slip Op 5002, 151 A.D.3d 1858, 54 N.Y.S.3d 267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Jefferson County (James P. McClusky, J.), entered May 26, 2016. The order, among other things, granted in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that she allegedly sustained when defendant’s vehicle struck an ambulance in which plaintiff was riding while acting in the course of her employment as an emergency medical technician and administering emergency care to a patient. In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant, among other things, negligently failed to pull over or yield the right-of-way to the ambulance, which had its emergency lights and siren activated at the time of the accident. Defendant appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the issues of negligence and proximate cause. Defendant’s- contention that there is a triable issue of fact whether the ambulance’s emergency lights and siren were activated at the time of the accident is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review (see generally British Am. Dev. Corp. v Schodack Exit Ten, LLC, 83 AD3d 1247, 1248 [2011]).

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, even assuming, arguendo, that there are triable issues of fact whether the ambulance driver was reckless and whether that recklessness was a proximate cause of the accident, we conclude that they do not preclude plaintiff’s entitlement to summary judgment on the issue whether defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, inasmuch as “[i]t was not plaintiff[’s] burden to demonstrate that defendant’s negligence was the sole proximate cause” (Strauss v Billig, 78 AD3d 415, 415 *1859 [2010], lv dismissed 16 NY3d 755 [2011]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Smith, Carni, Curran and Scudder, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Jefferson County (James P. McClusky, J.), entered May 26, 2016. The order, among other things, granted in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that she allegedly sustained when defendant’s vehicle struck an ambulance in which plaintiff was riding while acting in the course of her employment as an emergency medical technician and administering emergency care to a patient. In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant, among other things, negligently failed to pull over or yield the right-of-way to the ambulance, which had its emergency lights and siren activated at the time of the accident. Defendant appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the issues of negligence and proximate cause. Defendant’s- contention that there is a triable issue of fact whether the ambulance’s emergency lights and siren were activated at the time of the accident is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review (see generally British Am. Dev. Corp. v Schodack Exit Ten, LLC, 83 AD3d 1247, 1248 [2011]).

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, even assuming, arguendo, that there are triable issues of fact whether the ambulance driver was reckless and whether that recklessness was a proximate cause of the accident, we conclude that they do not preclude plaintiff’s entitlement to summary judgment on the issue whether defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, inasmuch as “[i]t was not plaintiff[’s] burden to demonstrate that defendant’s negligence was the sole proximate cause” (Strauss v Billig, 78 AD3d 415, 415 *1859 [2010], lv dismissed 16 NY3d 755 [2011]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Smith, Carni, Curran and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5002, 151 A.D.3d 1858, 54 N.Y.S.3d 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowner-v-king-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack