Case Name: Emma O. Asante, Appellant-Respondent, v. Prince Asante, Respondent-Appellant, and City of New York et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-01-19
Citations: 135 A.D.3d 562
Docket Number: 
Parties: Emma O. Asante, Appellant-Respondent, v Prince Asante, Respondent-Appellant, and City of New York et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 135
Pages: 562–563

Head Matter:
Emma O. Asante, Appellant-Respondent, v Prince Asante, Respondent-Appellant, and City of New York et al., Respondents.
[22 NYS3d 848]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered November 12, 2013, which granted the New York City defendants reargument of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and, upon reargument, granted the motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The City defendants established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's personal injury action against them based upon: (1) Officer Gil's uncontradicted deposition testimony that she was responding to a "10-85" radio call of an officer in need of assistance when the police vehicle she was driving collided with appellants' motor vehicle (see generally Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b; Criscione v City of New York, 97 NY2d 152 [2001]); (2) deposition testimony offered by Officer Gil that the light was red against her when she attempted to get through the intersection, combined with appellants' deposition testimony that they had a green light in their favor at the time of the accident, which supported Officer Gil's position that her conduct was privileged under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (b), entitling her to the "reckless disregard" standard (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e]; see generally Kabir v County of Monroe, 16 NY3d 217, 227 [2011]; Tatishev v City of New York, 84 AD3d 656 [1st Dept 2011]); and (3) Officer Gil's testimony that upon reaching the intersection, she observed appellants' vehicle, stopped the police vehicle and waited for appellants' vehicle to also stop prior to attempting to go around the front of that vehicle; however, both vehicles moved forward at the same time resulting in the accident (see generally Frezzell v City of New York, 24 NY3d 213 [2014]; Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553 [1997]).
The burden on the motion having shifted, appellants failed to offer evidence that raised a triable issue of fact (see Frezzell, 24 NY3d at 218). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Andrias and Moskowitz, JJ.