Ruiz v. Reyes

2017 NY Slip Op 2170, 148 A.D.3d 592, 50 N.Y.S.3d 340
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 23, 2017
Docket3515 302045/14
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2170 (Ruiz v. Reyes) 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
Ruiz v. Reyes, 2017 NY Slip Op 2170, 148 A.D.3d 592, 50 N.Y.S.3d 340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered August 31, 2016, which granted the motions of respondents Ruben Ruiz, Barbara L. Borgella and Maeleen Ambulette Transport, Inc. (MATI), for summary judgment on the issue of defendants Aztec Auto Restoration, Inc. (Aztec) and Roberto C. Reyes’s liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This action arises out of an automobile accident where a tow truck owned by Aztec and driven by defendant Reyes crashed head-on into an ambulette owned by respondent MATI and driven by respondent Ruiz. The evidence, including affidavits of Ruiz and of respondent Borgella, who was a passenger in the ambulette, shows that at the time of the accident, the two vehicles were traveling in opposite directions, when Reyes’s *593 vehicle crossed over the double yellow lines of traffic and struck the ambulette. The motion court correctly concluded that the evidence demonstrated the absence of any negligence on Ruiz’s part, and that Aztec and Reyes failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see e.g. Zapata v Sutton, 84 AD3d 521 [1st Dept 2011]).

Furthermore, Aztec and Reyes failed to demonstrate entitlement to discovery concerning the emergency doctrine defense because Reyes did not deny Ruiz’s assertions that Reyes was traveling at an excessive rate of speed when he collided head-on with the ambulette. The emergency doctrine does not apply when the emergency was of a defendant’s own making (see e.g. Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327 [1991]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Related

Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority
569 N.E.2d 432 (New York Court of Appeals, 1991)
Zapata v. Sutton
84 A.D.3d 521 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 2170, 148 A.D.3d 592, 50 N.Y.S.3d 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruiz-v-reyes-nyappdiv-2017.