From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Koch v. Levenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 11, 1996
225 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

March 11, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to Sheldon Levenson dismissing all complaints, third-party complaints, and cross claims insofar as asserted against him. Levenson was driving his automobile north along Peninsula Boulevard in Rockville Center when a driver in the southbound lane lost control of his vehicle, which crossed the center median, striking the Levenson vehicle head on.

It is axiomatic that a driver is not required to anticipate that an automobile traveling in the opposite direction will cross over into oncoming traffic (see, Goff v Goudreau, 222 A.D.2d 650; Mangano v New York City Hous. Auth., 218 A.D.2d 787). Indeed, such a scenario presents an emergency situation, and the actions of the driver presented with such a situation must be judged in that context (see, Greifer v Schneider, 215 A.D.2d 354; Glick v City of New York, 191 A.D.2d 677, 678). Here, Levenson was faced with an instantaneous cross-over emergency when the offending vehicle suddenly shot into the oncoming lane of traffic, leaving him with virtually no time to react (see, Williams v Econ, 221 A.D.2d 429; Mangano v New York City Hous. Auth., supra). We find no merit to the appellant's contention that Levenson could have taken evasive action because a passenger in his vehicle warned him to "watch out" approximately two or three seconds before the offending vehicle crossed the median. This argument disregards the principle that a driver need not anticipate such a situation (see, Mangano v New York City Hous. Auth., supra; Gouchie v Gill, 198 A.D.2d 862). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly determined that any possible negligence on Levenson's part did not contribute to the accident (see, Moller v Lieber, 156 A.D.2d 434). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Koch v. Levenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 11, 1996
225 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Koch v. Levenson

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL KOCH et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHELDON LEVENSON, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Mar 11, 1996

Citations

225 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
638 N.Y.S.2d 785

Citing Cases

Schmall v. Ryder

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted,…

Wenck v. Zillioux

(Plaintiffs and Zillioux each testified that there was a moderate grade to the road at the accident site.) As…