Maisonet v. Roman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Renwick, J.R
The sudden emergency doctrine defense is frequently interposed in motor vehicle cases involving rear-end collisions. It is, however, usually not a viable defense unless the driver of the offending vehicle is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance that is not of his or her own making. In the instant case, a plausible sudden emergency is alleged by defendant driver’s explanation that his vehicle was suddenly cut off at an intersection by another vehicle, which did not have the right-of-way. Unlike the dissent, we are not willing to find as a matter of…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Rivera v. New York City Transit AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Caristo v. SanzoneNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
- Johnson v. PhillipsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Koenig v. LeeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Rivas v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Powers v. Kyong Kwan MinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Savinon v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Gallt v. NelkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2025
- Jones v. K&C Limousines of New York, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Kaplan v. TsirlinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.