Court Opinion

ID: 9876511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 23:00:16.28952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:12.559533
License: Public Domain

*1576Carni, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Under the emergency doctrine, “when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context” (Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327 [1991], rearg denied 77 NY2d 990 [1991]). Although I agree with my colleagues that the existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of the response to it generally present issues of fact (see Makagon v Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 23 AD3d 443, 444 [2005]), those issues “may in appropriate circumstances be determined as a matter of law” (Bello v Transit Auth. of N.Y. City, 12 AD3d 58, 60 [2004]). In my view, the circumstances presented here warrant the application of the emergency doctrine as a matter of law to the conduct of defendant Gina M. Wagner. I would therefore reverse the order insofar as appealed from and grant Wagner’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims against her.
Present — Smith, J.P., Carni, NeMoyer, Curran and Troutman, JJ.