Rabassa v. Caldas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rabassa v. Caldas

306 A.D.2d 137, 760 N.Y.S.2d 318

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

DecidedJune 17, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 137 (Rabassa v. Caldas) 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

Rabassa v. Caldas, 306 A.D.2d 137, 760 N.Y.S.2d 318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, J.), entered January 11, 2002, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellants’ motion for summary judgment since questions of fact exist respecting the applicability of the emergency doctrine, including whether the actions of defendant-appellant Rajwid in quickly moving his vehicle into the left lane were reasonable, how long the vehicle operated by Rajwid was in the left lane before hitting plaintiff’s vehicle and whether Rajwid should have seen plaintiffs stopped vehicle in time to avoid the collision (see Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322 [1991]; and see Caristo v Sanzone, 96 NY2d 172 [2001]; Quiles v Greene, 291 AD2d 345 [2002]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, J.), entered January 11, 2002, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellants’ motion for summary judgment since questions of fact exist respecting the applicability of the emergency doctrine, including whether the actions of defendant-appellant Rajwid in quickly moving his vehicle into the left lane were reasonable, how long the vehicle operated by Rajwid was in the left lane before hitting plaintiff’s vehicle and whether Rajwid should have seen plaintiffs stopped vehicle in time to avoid the collision (see Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322 [1991]; and see Caristo v Sanzone, 96 NY2d 172 [2001]; Quiles v Greene, 291 AD2d 345 [2002]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 137, 760 N.Y.S.2d 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rabassa-v-caldas-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack