Lauricella v. McKinney

284 A.D.2d 939, 726 N.Y.S.2d 510, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5797
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 2001·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that he sustained in a one-car accident in the State of Michigan. The automobile in which plaintiff was a passenger struck a pool of water during a heavy rainstorm, spun out of control and rolled over. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the “sudden emergency doctrine” under Michigan law (see, Moore v Spangler, 401 Mich 360, 382-383, 258 NW2d 34, 43; Vander Laan v Miedema, 385 Mich 226, 231-232, 188 NW2d 564, 567). Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Whether the circumstances constituted a “sudden emergency” and whether defendants’ conduct was reasonable in light of those circumstances are issues for the trier of fact (see, Sacco v Phillippsen, 272 AD2d 889; see also, Kuci v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 88 NY2d 923, 924). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Burns, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

Lauricella v. McKinney, 284 A.D.2d 939, 726 N.Y.S.2d 510, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

284 A.D.2d 939 (Lauricella v. McKinney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barnes v. Fix
63 A.D.3d 1515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Greenwell v. Moody
295 A.D.2d 954 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)