Ruiz v. Rochester Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruiz v. Rochester Telephone Co.

195 A.D.2d 981, 600 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7767

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

DecidedJuly 16, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 195 A.D.2d 981 (Ruiz v. Rochester Telephone Co.) 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. Rochester Telephone Co., 195 A.D.2d 981, 600 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s second affirmative defense, premised on plaintiff’s failure to use a seat belt. Plaintiff contends that, as the operator of a tractor-trailer, he was not legally required to wear a seat belt (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 151-a, 1229-c). "The fact that the law did not require plaintiff to wear his seat belt at the time of the accident is of no moment” (Gardner v Honda Motor Co., 145 AD2d 41, 47, lv dismissed 74 NY2d 715). A jury should be allowed to consider a plaintiff’s failure to wear an available seat belt in assessing damages (Spier v Barker, 35 NY2d 444, 450). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Curran, J.—Dismiss Affirmative Defense.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Balio, Doerr, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s second affirmative defense, premised on plaintiff’s failure to use a seat belt. Plaintiff contends that, as the operator of a tractor-trailer, he was not legally required to wear a seat belt (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 151-a, 1229-c). "The fact that the law did not require plaintiff to wear his seat belt at the time of the accident is of no moment” (Gardner v Honda Motor Co., 145 AD2d 41, 47, lv dismissed 74 NY2d 715). A jury should be allowed to consider a plaintiff’s failure to wear an available seat belt in assessing damages (Spier v Barker, 35 NY2d 444, 450). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Curran, J.—Dismiss Affirmative Defense.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Balio, Doerr, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.D.2d 981, 600 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruiz-v-rochester-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack