§Why CasetextPricing

Jason Pelletier, Appellant,v.Brittany Lahm et al., Respondents.

Brief

24 Cited authorities

  1. Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, Inc.

    86 N.Y.2d 744 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 1,064 times

    Decided July 5, 1995 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Robert F. Doran, J. Grasso, Rodriguez, Putorti, Grasso Zyra, Schenectady (Lawrence J. Zyra of counsel), for appellants. Rowley, Forrest, O'Donnell, Beaumont Pelersi, P.C., Albany (John H. Beaumont and Richard W. Bader of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to that Court for further proceedings in

  2. Rivera v. N Y City Tr. Auth

    77 N.Y.2d 322 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 367 times
    Discussing the emergency doctrine and noting that "[t]his doctrine recognizes that 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"

  3. Caristo v. Sanzone

    96 N.Y.2d 172 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 215 times
    Holding that the emergency doctrine "is still a part of New York law" but declining to apply it to a situation where the defendant lost control of vehicle on an icy road despite knowing that it was below freezing, it had been snowing for two hours, and that he was driving on a hill

  4. Barbieri v. Vokoun

    72 A.D.3d 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 105 times
    In Barbieri v Vokoun (72 AD3d 853 [2d Dept 2010]), the Second Department held, in a similar case involving a driver colliding into a pedestrian with the right of way at a crosswalk, that a violation of a standard of care imposed by the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se, citing to Coogan v Torrisi, 47 AD3d 669, 670 [2d Dept 2008] ; Jones v Radeker, 32 AD3d 494, 496 [2d Dept 2006] ; and Lagana v Fox, 6 AD3d 583 [2d Dept 2004]).

  5. Ferrer v. Harris

    55 N.Y.2d 285 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 171 times
    Holding that emergency doctrine applied in the instance where a four-year old child ran in front of Defendant's vehicle because a child darting out into the middle of the street is not an ordinary occurrence that is to be reasonably anticipated by a driver

  6. Krynski v. Chase

    707 F. Supp. 2d 318 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 60 times
    In Krynski, for example, the non-movant asked the court to ignore his entirely "contrary description" of the events underpinning his claim and attempted "to create triable issues of fact by alternating between [these] competing versions."

  7. Lifson v. City of Syracuse

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7145 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 52 times
    Concluding that error in giving sudden emergency instruction was not harmless where application of the instruction to the facts presented could have affected the outcome of the trial

  8. Moffatt v. Moffatt

    86 A.D.2d 864 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)   Cited 100 times

    February 16, 1982 In a matrimonial action, plaintiff appeals (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kelly, J.), dated November 6, 1980, as granted defendant's cross motion for leave to discontinue her counterclaim for separation, without prejudice, and (2) as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of a further order of the same court (Vitale, J.), entered April 30, 1981, as (a) set aside a jury verdict in his favor on his first cause of action, for divorce

  9. Moffatt v. Moffatt

    62 N.Y.2d 875 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 93 times

    Decided June 7, 1984 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, Alexander Vitale, J. Barbara Simon for appellant. Alan P. Goodman for respondent. On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs. The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as it denied defendant's cross motion to discontinue her counterclaim on the appeal from the order

  10. Delgado v. Board of Eduaction, No. 1

    65 A.D.2d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)   Cited 89 times

    October 2, 1978 In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant and third-party defendant appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 13, 1977, which granted plaintiffs' motion (1) to set aside the jury verdict and (2) for a new trial. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, plaintiffs' motion denied, jury verdict reinstated and action remitted to Trial Term for the entry of an appropriate judgment. The trial court erred