From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Frank v. Lufsey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 1997
243 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

October 14, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The jury's verdict in favor of the defendants is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134), and should not be disturbed.

The court properly charged the jury on the emergency doctrine. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendants, was sufficient to establish that the defendant driver was faced with a sudden and unforeseeable occurrence not of his own making. The reasonableness of his conduct in the face of the emergency was a proper question for the jury ( see, Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 77 N.Y.2d 322, 327; Coleman v. Pizza Hut, 235 A.D.2d 451).

Miller, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Frank v. Lufsey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 1997
243 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Frank v. Lufsey

Case Details

Full title:GARY W. FRANK et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM T. LUFSEY et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 14, 1997

Citations

243 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
665 N.Y.S.2d 298

Citing Cases

Vitale v. Levine

t the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be…

Richards v. Miller

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court properly charged the…