Ryan v. Town of Smithtown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ryan v. Town of Smithtown

49 A.D.3d 853, 854 N.Y.2d 483

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 853 (Ryan v. Town of Smithtown) 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

Ryan v. Town of Smithtown, 49 A.D.3d 853, 854 N.Y.2d 483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

This action arises from a collision between a vehicle driven by [854]*854the plaintiff and a dump truck owned by the defendants Town of Smithtown and Smithtown Highway Department and operated by the defendant John V Iannuzzi. At the time of the accident, the dump truck was being used to spread sand on a roadway during a snowfall, and thus the truck was “actually engaged in work on a highway,” as contemplated by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b). Accordingly, the defendants may be held liable only if Iannuzzi acted in “reckless disregard for the safety of others” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 [b]; see Riley v County of Broome, 95 NY2d 455, 466 [2000]).

At his deposition, Iannuzzi testified that the dump truck had been stationary for “maybe 20 seconds” at the time of the collision, and that the truck was equipped with backup lights and a beeping device that would sound when the truck was driven in reverse, both of which were operational on the day of the accident. However, at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, the plaintiff testified that as she proceeded through an intersection with a green light in her favor, the dump truck, which was situated on the intersecting street, backed up into her path of travel, causing her vehicle to collide with it. According to the plaintiff, she neither observed any illuminated reverse lights nor heard any warning sound as the truck backed up.

Thus, in response to the defendants’ prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Iannuzzi operated the truck with reckless disregard for the safety of others (see Riley v County of Broome, 95 NY2d at 466; Badalamenti v City of New York, 30 AD3d 452 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

This action arises from a collision between a vehicle driven by [854]*854the plaintiff and a dump truck owned by the defendants Town of Smithtown and Smithtown Highway Department and operated by the defendant John V Iannuzzi. At the time of the accident, the dump truck was being used to spread sand on a roadway during a snowfall, and thus the truck was “actually engaged in work on a highway,” as contemplated by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b). Accordingly, the defendants may be held liable only if Iannuzzi acted in “reckless disregard for the safety of others” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 [b]; see Riley v County of Broome, 95 NY2d 455, 466 [2000]).

At his deposition, Iannuzzi testified that the dump truck had been stationary for “maybe 20 seconds” at the time of the collision, and that the truck was equipped with backup lights and a beeping device that would sound when the truck was driven in reverse, both of which were operational on the day of the accident. However, at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, the plaintiff testified that as she proceeded through an intersection with a green light in her favor, the dump truck, which was situated on the intersecting street, backed up into her path of travel, causing her vehicle to collide with it. According to the plaintiff, she neither observed any illuminated reverse lights nor heard any warning sound as the truck backed up.

Thus, in response to the defendants’ prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Iannuzzi operated the truck with reckless disregard for the safety of others (see Riley v County of Broome, 95 NY2d at 466; Badalamenti v City of New York, 30 AD3d 452 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 853, 854 N.Y.2d 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-town-of-smithtown-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack