New York Appellate Division Affirms Denial of Summary Judgment, Holding Emergency Doctrine Does Not Eliminate Fact Issue on Reasonableness of Defendant’s Speed in Snowstorm Collision

The plaintiff brought this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when the vehicle she was operating was struck by the defendant’s vehicle when it was dark and snowing. 

Following joinder of issue and discovery, the defendant motioned for summary judgment, asserting that he was not negligent and had acted reasonably in response to an emergency situation. In support of this, the defendant claimed that he was traveling at a slower rate of speed given the situation. 

Upon reviewing the record and citing substantive state case law, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, noted that in viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendant’s own submissions raise an issue of fact regarding the reasonableness of the speed at which he was traveling. In support of this holding, the appellate court highlighted that, even under the emergency doctrine, where the defendant may have been traveling at a reduced speed, an issue of fact still arises as to whether that reduced speed was reasonable under the existing weather and road conditions. 

Therefore, the court concluded that because the defendant failed to meet his initial burden, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact.

Therefore, the appellate court affirmed a lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a case involving a motor vehicle accident. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}