Felder v. Freight

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Felder v. Freight

156 A.D.2d 540, 548 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15864

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 540 (Felder v. Freight) 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

Felder v. Freight, 156 A.D.2d 540, 548 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In three consolidated negligence actions to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident, (1) Carolina Freight Carriers and Joris Brooks appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), entered September 8, 1987, as was in favor of Milton Clarke and Dolores Clarke, and against them in action No. 1, and as was in favor of Alexander Morales and against them in action No. 2, and as was in favor of Richard Wong and against them in action No. 3; (2) Richard Wong appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same judgment as was in favor of Alexander Morales and against him in action No. 2; and (3) Dolores Clarke and Gary Felder appeal from so much of the same judgment as was in favor of the plaintiff Alexander Morales and against them in action No. 2, and as was in favor of the plaintiff Richard Wong and against them in action No. 3.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We find no error in the court’s refusal to charge the emergency doctrine (see, PJI 2:14) in this case. The drivers of the vehicles involved in this three-vehicle, pile-up collision were not presented with any sudden and unforeseen condition. They should reasonably have anticipated and been prepared to deal with the situation with which they were confronted (see, McCarthy v Miller, 139 AD2d 500; Hardy v Sicuranza, 133 AD2d 138; Kowchefski v Urbanowicz, 102 AD2d 863).

We also find no error in the court’s missing witness charge as to Gary Felder. Since Felder was the driver of the second vehicle, which was owned by the Clarkes, he was in a position to give substantial, and not merely cumulative, testimony; and, since he was the brother-in-law of Dolores Clarke, he could be considered to be available to her (see, Noce v Kaufman, 2 NY2d 347; Ausch v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 125 AD2d 43; Chandler v Flynn, 111 AD2d 300).

[541]*541We have examined the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

In three consolidated negligence actions to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident, (1) Carolina Freight Carriers and Joris Brooks appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), entered September 8, 1987, as was in favor of Milton Clarke and Dolores Clarke, and against them in action No. 1, and as was in favor of Alexander Morales and against them in action No. 2, and as was in favor of Richard Wong and against them in action No. 3; (2) Richard Wong appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same judgment as was in favor of Alexander Morales and against him in action No. 2; and (3) Dolores Clarke and Gary Felder appeal from so much of the same judgment as was in favor of the plaintiff Alexander Morales and against them in action No. 2, and as was in favor of the plaintiff Richard Wong and against them in action No. 3.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We find no error in the court’s refusal to charge the emergency doctrine (see, PJI 2:14) in this case. The drivers of the vehicles involved in this three-vehicle, pile-up collision were not presented with any sudden and unforeseen condition. They should reasonably have anticipated and been prepared to deal with the situation with which they were confronted (see, McCarthy v Miller, 139 AD2d 500; Hardy v Sicuranza, 133 AD2d 138; Kowchefski v Urbanowicz, 102 AD2d 863).

We also find no error in the court’s missing witness charge as to Gary Felder. Since Felder was the driver of the second vehicle, which was owned by the Clarkes, he was in a position to give substantial, and not merely cumulative, testimony; and, since he was the brother-in-law of Dolores Clarke, he could be considered to be available to her (see, Noce v Kaufman, 2 NY2d 347; Ausch v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 125 AD2d 43; Chandler v Flynn, 111 AD2d 300).

[541]*541We have examined the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 540, 548 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felder-v-freight-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack