Rodriguez v. Inc. Village of Freeport

21 A.D.3d 1024, 801 N.Y.S.2d 352
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 19, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 1024 (Rodriguez v. Inc. Village of Freeport) 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
Rodriguez v. Inc. Village of Freeport, 21 A.D.3d 1024, 801 N.Y.S.2d 352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated March 3, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The manner in which a police officer operates his or her vehicle in responding to an emergency radio bulletin may not form the basis of civil liability to an injured third party unless the officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e]; Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494, 501 [1994]; Molinari v City of New York, 267 AD2d 436 [1999]). The “reckless disregard” standard requires evidence that the actor intentionally committed an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 557 [1997]; Saarinen v Kerr, supra at 501; Campbell v City of Elmira, 84 NY2d 505, 510 [1994]).

In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant police officer was actually engaged in the “emergency operation” of her patrol car when she allegedly struck the plaintiff while backing up into a parking space (O’Banner v County of Sullivan, 16 AD3d 950, 952 [2005]; see Sweeney v Peterson, 1 AD3d 650, 651-652 [2003]). Crane, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Banks v. City of New York
92 A.D.3d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Kabir v. County of Monroe
945 N.E.2d 461 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
Kabir v. County of Monroe
68 A.D.3d 1628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Daly v. County of Westchester
63 A.D.3d 988 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Corallo v. Martino
58 A.D.3d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Meade v. Chestnut
53 A.D.3d 645 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Burrell v. City of New York
49 A.D.3d 482 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Shephard v. City of New York
39 A.D.3d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Badalamenti v. City of New York
30 A.D.3d 452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 A.D.3d 1024, 801 N.Y.S.2d 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-inc-village-of-freeport-nyappdiv-2005.