Quintero v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quintero v. City of New York

113 A.D.3d 414, 978 N.Y.2d 155

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 A.D.3d 414 (Quintero v. City of New York) 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

Quintero v. City of New York, 113 A.D.3d 414, 978 N.Y.2d 155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

[415]*415In this action brought by a police officer allegedly injured in a motor vehicle accident while she was a passenger in an unmarked police car, the municipal defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the complaint’s General Municipal Law § 205-e claims, predicated on violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and codefendants’ cross claim for negligence are barred by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104. Williams v City of New York (240 AD2d 734 [2d Dept 1997]), relied on by defendants, is distinguishable. In Williams, there was evidence that the police vehicle had used its portable light and siren to get a suspected stolen car to pull over (id. at 735-736). Here, however, plaintiff testified that defendant Rohe, the officer driving the vehicle, had double-parked the police vehicle in order to observe two suspects and that they were sitting at the accident location approximately 15 to 20 minutes before they were struck from behind by codefendants’ minivan.

Further, Rohe testified that he had double-parked the police vehicle in order to investigate a suspect, which is not an “emergency operation” as defined by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (a) (see Banks v City of New York, 92 AD3d 591, 591 [1st Dept 2012]; Rusho v State of New York, 76 AD3d 783, 784 [4th Dept 2010]). Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Clark, JJ.

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

[415]*415In this action brought by a police officer allegedly injured in a motor vehicle accident while she was a passenger in an unmarked police car, the municipal defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the complaint’s General Municipal Law § 205-e claims, predicated on violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and codefendants’ cross claim for negligence are barred by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104. Williams v City of New York (240 AD2d 734 [2d Dept 1997]), relied on by defendants, is distinguishable. In Williams, there was evidence that the police vehicle had used its portable light and siren to get a suspected stolen car to pull over (id. at 735-736). Here, however, plaintiff testified that defendant Rohe, the officer driving the vehicle, had double-parked the police vehicle in order to observe two suspects and that they were sitting at the accident location approximately 15 to 20 minutes before they were struck from behind by codefendants’ minivan.

Further, Rohe testified that he had double-parked the police vehicle in order to investigate a suspect, which is not an “emergency operation” as defined by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (a) (see Banks v City of New York, 92 AD3d 591, 591 [1st Dept 2012]; Rusho v State of New York, 76 AD3d 783, 784 [4th Dept 2010]). Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 414, 978 N.Y.2d 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quintero-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack