Ruotolo v. Ambu-Wagon, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruotolo v. Ambu-Wagon, Inc.

206 A.D.2d 416, 616 N.Y.S.2d 197

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 206 A.D.2d 416 (Ruotolo v. Ambu-Wagon, Inc.) 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

Ruotolo v. Ambu-Wagon, Inc., 206 A.D.2d 416, 616 N.Y.S.2d 197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In separate actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered November 19, 1992, which granted the third-party defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered, that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While negligence cases do not generally lend themselves to resolution by motion for summary judgment, such a motion will be granted where, as here, the unrefuted facts clearly point to the negligence of the decedent, the defendant Richards, without any fault or culpable conduct by the third-party defendant Rajanikant Shah (see, Wank v Ambrosino, 307 NY 321, 323-324; Forbes v Plume, 202 AD2d 821; Morowitz v Naughton, 150 AD2d 536, 537; Carter v County of Erie, 98 AD2d 963; Mildner v Wagner, 89 AD2d 638). The evidence revealed, as a matter of law, that Shah was confronted with a sudden and unanticipated situation which left him with only seconds to react. Thus, the emergency doctrine is applicable and Shah cannot be held liable for the accident (Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 326; Rowlands v Parks, 2 [417]*417NY2d 64, 66-67; Rivas v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 203 AD2d 349; Denicker v Denicker, 173 AD2d 516). Thompson, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In separate actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered November 19, 1992, which granted the third-party defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered, that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While negligence cases do not generally lend themselves to resolution by motion for summary judgment, such a motion will be granted where, as here, the unrefuted facts clearly point to the negligence of the decedent, the defendant Richards, without any fault or culpable conduct by the third-party defendant Rajanikant Shah (see, Wank v Ambrosino, 307 NY 321, 323-324; Forbes v Plume, 202 AD2d 821; Morowitz v Naughton, 150 AD2d 536, 537; Carter v County of Erie, 98 AD2d 963; Mildner v Wagner, 89 AD2d 638). The evidence revealed, as a matter of law, that Shah was confronted with a sudden and unanticipated situation which left him with only seconds to react. Thus, the emergency doctrine is applicable and Shah cannot be held liable for the accident (Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 326; Rowlands v Parks, 2 [417]*417NY2d 64, 66-67; Rivas v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 203 AD2d 349; Denicker v Denicker, 173 AD2d 516). Thompson, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 416, 616 N.Y.S.2d 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruotolo-v-ambu-wagon-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack