Marte v. Guzman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marte v. Guzman

272 A.D.2d 279, 709 N.Y.S.2d 399, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6095

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 279 (Marte v. Guzman) 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

Marte v. Guzman, 272 A.D.2d 279, 709 N.Y.S.2d 399, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about May 28, 1999, denying the motion of defendants Gerald G. Emerson and Celeste Emerson for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The vehicle owned and operated by the Emerson defendants was on the favored roadway and the Guzman taxicab (in which plaintiff was a passenger) entered the intersection where the collision occurred through a stop sign, without stopping. Thus, there remain questions of fact as to whether the Emerson vehicle was operated reasonably under the conditions existing at the time of the accident (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [a], [e]; see also, Ferrer v Harris, 55 NY2d 285; Lee v City Brewing Corp., 279 NY 380). Moreover, a factual issue is presented as to whether those conditions would justify defendants’ reliance upon the emergency doctrine (see, Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Andrias, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about May 28, 1999, denying the motion of defendants Gerald G. Emerson and Celeste Emerson for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The vehicle owned and operated by the Emerson defendants was on the favored roadway and the Guzman taxicab (in which plaintiff was a passenger) entered the intersection where the collision occurred through a stop sign, without stopping. Thus, there remain questions of fact as to whether the Emerson vehicle was operated reasonably under the conditions existing at the time of the accident (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [a], [e]; see also, Ferrer v Harris, 55 NY2d 285; Lee v City Brewing Corp., 279 NY 380). Moreover, a factual issue is presented as to whether those conditions would justify defendants’ reliance upon the emergency doctrine (see, Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Andrias, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 279, 709 N.Y.S.2d 399, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marte-v-guzman-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack