| Evans v Bosl |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05985 [75 AD3d 491] |
| July 6, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Wilnie Evans et al., Appellants, v Susan A. Bosl et al.,Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Perez & Varvaro (Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Scott T. Horn and Naomi M.Taub], of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), datedApril 27, 2009, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Susan A. Bosl and GeorgeJ. Bosl which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted againstthem.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On October 9, 2006, the injured plaintiff (hereinafter the plaintiff) was a passenger in ataxicab stopped at a traffic light in the center westbound lane of the north service road of theLong Island Expressway at its intersection with Motor Parkway. The defendant Susan A. Bosl(hereinafter Bosl) was operating a vehicle in the left westbound lane and also was stopped at thelight. When the traffic signal turned green, the driver of the taxicab, the defendant Jorge Lopez,attempted a left turn and crossed into the path of Bosl's vehicle, which was not turning, and thetwo cars collided, allegedly causing injuries to the plaintiff. Bosl did not see the taxicab crossinto her lane until just before her vehicle collided with it. The evidence established that Boslslammed on the brakes or attempted to move to the center lane. After discovery was completed,Bosl and her husband, the co-owner of the vehicle (hereinafter together the Bosl defendants),moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted againstthem. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the motion, finding that Lopez's attempt to turnleft from the center lane, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 (d), was the soleproximate cause of the accident, and that, under the emergency doctrine, the Bosl defendantscould not be held liable. We affirm.
"[T]he emergency doctrine holds that those faced with a sudden and unexpectedcircumstance, not of their own making, that leaves them with little or no time for reflection orreasonably causes them to be so disturbed that they are compelled to make a quick decisionwithout weighing alternative courses of conduct, may not be negligent if their actions arereasonable and [*2]prudent in the context of the emergency" (Bello v Transit Auth. of N.Y. City, 12AD3d 58, 60 [2004]; see Milosciav New York City Bd. of Educ., 70 AD3d 904, 905 [2010]; Vitale v Levine, 44 AD3d 935,936 [2007]). Here, the Bosls established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment bysubmitting evidence that established that Bosl was confronted with a sudden and unexpectedcircumstance not of her own making and that, under the circumstances, her actions werereasonable and prudent in the context of that emergency. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed toraise a triable issue of fact (see Miloscia v New York City Bd. of Educ., 70 AD3d at 905;Vitale v Levine, 44 AD3d at 936). Fisher, J.P., Lott, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.