Legal Opinion

Dalchand v. Missigman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 9, 2001PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the cross motion of Constance Missigman (defendant) to amend her answer to add an affirmative defense based upon the medical emergency doctrine. A driver “who experiences a sudden medical emergency will not be chargeable with negligence provided that the medical emergency was unforeseen” (1A NY PJI 218 [3d ed 2001]; see also, Ficorilli v Thomsen, 262 AD2d 602, 603; State of New York v Susco, 245 AD2d 854, 855). According to her deposition testimony, defendant was stopped in traffic behind the stopped vehicle…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. SuscoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  2. Ficorilli v. ThomsenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  3. Reeg v. HodgsonOhio Court of Appeals · 1964

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bello v. Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  2. Martinez v. GrimmAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
  3. Conrad v. DeMundaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
  4. Wozniak v. DeMundaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API