Olivera v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Olivera v. City of New York

239 A.D.2d 300, 658 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5714

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 29, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J., and a jury ), entered December 28,1995, in favor of defendant and against plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[301] The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, which showed that at the time of the accident the police officers were in the pursuit of a suspect who reportedly had stolen a car and had a gun, and that their vehicular pursuit of the suspect did not recklessly disregard a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make highly probable that harm would follow (see, Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494, 501). Accordingly, the officers’ vehicle was engaged in an emergency operation within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b, and the jury was properly charged on Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104. The deposition testimony of the unavailable officer was properly excluded under CPLR 3117 (c) since plaintiffs were not parties to the action in which that testimony was taken. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J., and a jury ), entered December 28,1995, in favor of defendant and against plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[301] The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, which showed that at the time of the accident the police officers were in the pursuit of a suspect who reportedly had stolen a car and had a gun, and that their vehicular pursuit of the suspect did not recklessly disregard a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make highly probable that harm would follow (see, Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494, 501). Accordingly, the officers’ vehicle was engaged in an emergency operation within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b, and the jury was properly charged on Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104. The deposition testimony of the unavailable officer was properly excluded under CPLR 3117 (c) since plaintiffs were not parties to the action in which that testimony was taken. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Olivera v. City of New York, 239 A.D.2d 300, 658 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

239 A.D.2d 300 (Olivera v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related