Lauricella v. McKinney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lauricella v. McKinney

284 A.D.2d 939, 726 N.Y.S.2d 510, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5797

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

DecidedJune 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 939 (Lauricella v. McKinney) 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

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).

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 939, 726 N.Y.S.2d 510, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lauricella-v-mckinney-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack