Pelletier v. Lahm

New York Court of Appeals

Pelletier v. Lahm

19 N.E.3d 491, 24 N.Y.3d 966

New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 16, 2014·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered as unnecessary. The Appellate Division did not err in concluding that the giving of the emergency doctrine charge was proper because “[i]t was for the jury to find whether [defendant driver] was faced with a sudden and unforeseen emergency not of her own making and, if so, whether her response to the situation was that of a reasonably prudent person” (111 AD3d 807, 809 [2d Dept 2013]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered as unnecessary. The Appellate Division did not err in concluding that the giving of the emergency doctrine charge was proper because “[i]t was for the jury to find whether [defendant driver] was faced with a sudden and unforeseen emergency not of her own making and, if so, whether her response to the situation was that of a reasonably prudent person” (111 AD3d 807, 809 [2d Dept 2013]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.

Pelletier v. Lahm, 19 N.E.3d 491, 24 N.Y.3d 966 (N.Y. 2014).

Pincite

19 N.E.3d 491 (Pelletier v. Lahm) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related