Category Archives: Motor Vehicle Law

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

Was Father Liable For Injury to Third Party?

Hugo Rodriguez sued Robin Sanchez and his father, Roman Sanchez. The undisputed facts were simple. Robin was driving his father’s van when he hit Rodriguez’s car. Robin claimed that Rodriguez rolled into his car, a claim which Rodriguez dismissed as patently false. Robin fled from the scene, only returning when Roman was able to reach him, after the police contacted his father.

Roman moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him. The basis for Roman’s motion was that he claims that his son was driving the vehicle without his permission, such that he should not be liable for the accident pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388.

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

Court Reviews Conflicting Affidavits and Analyzes Burden of Proof

Rear end automobile collision claims would seemingly raise quintessential questions of fact for trial—especially where the two drivers submit clearly conflicting and controverting affidavits about the facts and circumstances of the crash. But, as a recent decision illustrates, that is not always the case.

Stephanie Wilms was involved in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on March 2, 2018 at approximately 5:35 p.m. A vehicle owned by ADT Security Services, Inc. and Protection 1 Alarm Monitoring, Inc., and operated by Corteze C. Remy Jr., struck the rear of her car on Joshua’s Path at or near its intersection with Central Avenue, in Hauppauge, New York. Wilms contended that her vehicle was stopped at a stop sign when the Remy-driven vehicle struck the rear of her car. Wilms sought to recover for serious physical injuries that she claimed she sustained as a result of the accident.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Was Decedent “Visibly Intoxicated ”At Time He Was Served Drinks So As To Implicate Dram Act Liability?

The New York Alcoholic Beverage Law prohibits the sale of liquor to an intoxicated person. The Dram Shop Act creates a private civil cause of action against those who overserve drinks in favor of third-parties who suffer personal injuries as a result of a violation of the ABC Law. But to trigger Dram Shop liability a claimant must establish that the miscreant was “visibly intoxicated”—a fact and case specific burden.

Michael Stanley, Thomas Kelly, and five other men met at the home of Thomas and Jillian Kelly on March 17, 2017; the group left the Kelly’s home, with Stanley driving a snowmobile owned by the Kelly’s; the group stopped at the Boonville Hotel, Inc. and consumed alcohol there; and after leaving the Hotel the group got gas and began the return trip to the Kelly’s home. At that point, Stanley drove the snowmobile into a concrete overpass, resulting in his death. The autopsy report indicated the cause of death was multiple traumatic injuries due to snowmobile accident with a fixed object. The toxicology report showed Stanley had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .16%. The Oneida County Sheriff’s Department concluded that speed and alcohol were the two biggest contributing factors to the single snowmobile accident.

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

Was “Emergency Doctrine” a Defense?

Andrew DiNatale sued to recover damages for injuries he allegedly sustained on April 29, 2015 while riding a bicycle. He was struck by a motor vehicle owned by Mac Mechanical Conveyor (MCC) and operated by Nicholas Gerbano.

DiNatale moved for partial summary judgment in his favor as to MMC/Gerbano’s negligence, arguing that their actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. DiNatale also sought an order striking their affirmative defenses related to “negligence liability.” In support of the motion, DiNatale submitted his own affidavit, various photographs, and a certified copy of an MV-104A police accident report.

This originally appeared on the SGR Blog.

A deliveryman drives his  bicycle against traffic on a one way street.  A pedestrian crosses in the middle of the block. The biker hits the jay- walker. Litigation ensues. Both violated the law.  Who is at fault?

Antoinette Montague was struck by an employee  of T&W Restaurant, Inc. while he was making deliveries on a bicycle. The employee was riding the bike against the one-way direction of travel on East 55^th Street between Lexington and Third Avenues– a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.