recklessness standard in New York

2023Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b) provides that all vehicles, regardless of their classification, are excused from the rules of the road when "actually engaged in work on a highway" ( see Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d at 464 ), "and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care" ( Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept. , 25 NY3d 1102, 1105 ; see Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d at 460 ; Orellana v Town of Carmel , 212 AD3d 834, 835 , lv granted , 39 NY3d 916 ).

2023Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b) provides that all vehicles, regardless of their classification, are excused from the rules of the road when "actually engaged in work on a highway" ( see Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d at 464 ), "and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care" ( Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept. , 25 NY3d 1102, 1105 ; see Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d at 460 ; Orellana v Town of Carmel , 212 AD3d 834, 835 , lv granted , 39 NY3d 916 ).

2023Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b) exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles [*2]"which are 'actually engaged in work on a highway,' and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care" ( Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept. , 25 NY3d 1102, 1105 [citation omitted], quoting Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d 455, 460 ; see Veralli v O'Connor , 190 AD3d 783 ; Ventura v County of Nassau , 175 AD3d 620 , 621; Rockland Coaches, Inc. v Town of Clarkstown , 49 AD3d 705, 706 ).

2023Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b) provides that all vehicles, regardless of their classification, are excused from the rules of the road when "actually engaged in work on a highway" ( see Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d at 464 ), "and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care" ( Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept. , 25 NY3d 1102, 1105 ; see Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d at 460 ; Orellana v Town of Carmel , 212 AD3d 834, 835 , lv granted , 39 NY3d 916 ).

2020The imposition of liability under the recklessness standard, which the Court of Appeals has described as a "minimum standard of care" ( id. at 1106 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d 455, 466 [2000]), "demands more than a showing of a lack of due care under the circumstances'—the showing typically associated with ordinary negligence claims" ( Saarinen v Kerr , 84 NY2d 494, 501 [1994]).

2003It is this privilege that is circumscribed by the recklessness standard (see Saarinen, supra at 499-500 ).

2023That exemption, however, "applies only when such work is in fact being performed at the time of the accident" ( Hofmann v Town of Ashford , 60 AD3d 1498, 1499 [4th Dept 2009]).

2022The exemption "applies only when such work is in fact being performed at the time of the accident" ( Hofmann v Town of Ashford , 60 AD3d 1498, 1499 [4th Dept 2009]), which includes a snowplow engaged in plowing or salting a road ( see Harris v Hanssen , 161 AD3d 1531 , 1533 [4th Dept 2018]; Arrahim , 151 AD3d at 1773).

2021Auth. , 269 AD2d 299, 303 [1st Dept 2000]).

2021Auth. , 269 AD2d 299, 303 [1st Dept 2000]).

2000Undeniably then, the 1974 amendment was intended to subject vehicles engaged in road work to the same recklessness standard applicable to emergency vehicles under section 1104 (e) (see, McDonald v State of New York, 176 Misc 2d 130, 139 [Ct Cl]).

1999In McDonald v State of New York ( 176 Misc 2d 130 ), the trial court addressed the issue of whether the State could avail itself of the recklessness standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) where the operator of a snowplow, engaged in snow and ice removal on a highway, had an accident with claimants’ motor vehicle.

2023Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) "exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles, including [snowplows], which are 'actually engaged in work on a highway' . . . , and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care" ( Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept. , 25 NY3d 1102, 1105 [2015]; see Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d 455, 461 [2000]; Chase v Marsh , 162 AD3d 1589 , 1590 [4th Dept 2018]; Arrahim v City of Buffalo , 151 AD3d 1773 , 1773 [4th Dept 2017]).

2022Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) "exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles, including [snowplows], which are 'actually engaged in work on a highway' . . . , and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care" ( Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept. , 25 NY3d 1102, 1105 [2015]; see Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d 455, 461 [2000]; Chase v Marsh , 162 AD3d 1589 , 1590 [4th Dept 2018]; Arrahim v City of Buffalo , 151 AD3d 1773 , 1773 [4th Dept 2017]).

2025As relevant here, a snowplow operator who "was working [their] 'run' or 'beat' at the time of the accident" may be entitled to the recklessness standard of care "even if the plow blades were raised at the time of the accident and no salting was occurring" ( Plummer v Town of Greece , 213 AD3d 1236, 1237 [4th Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]."Reckless disregard, however, requires more than a momentary lapse in judgment" ( Rockland Coaches, Inc. v Town of Clarkstown, 49 AD3d 705 [2d Dept 2008], quoting.

2023This "exemption turns on the nature of the work being performed" ( Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d at 464 ), and is limited to vehicles performing "'construction, repair, maintenance or similar work'" ( Guzman v Bowen , 38 AD3d 837, 837 , quoting Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d at 464 ; see Bliss v State of New York , 95 NY2d 911, 913 ).

2023Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b) exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles [*2]"which are 'actually engaged in work on a highway,' and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care" ( Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept. , 25 NY3d 1102, 1105 [citation omitted], quoting Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d 455, 460 ; see Veralli v O'Connor , 190 AD3d 783 ; Ventura v County of Nassau , 175 AD3d 620 , 621; Rockland Coaches, Inc. v Town of Clarkstown , 49 AD3d 705, 706 ).

2023Here, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendants established, prima facie, that Simone was actually engaged in work on a highway at the time of the accident, and was therefore entitled to the protection of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b) ( see Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d at 455 ; Veralli v O'Connor , 190 AD3d at 783 ; Ventura v County of Nassau , 175 AD3d at 621; cf. O'Keeffe v State of New York , 40 AD3d 607 ).

2023Indeed, it is well established that a police officer's pursuit of a motorist for a suspected traffic violation qualifies as an emergency operation ( see Thompson v City of New York , 210 AD3d 1031, 1033-1034 [2d Dept 2022]; see also Lacey v City of Syracuse , 144 AD3d 1665 , 1665 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 32 NY3d 913 [2019]; Flynn v Sambuca Taxi, LLC , 123 AD3d 501, 501-502 [1st Dept 2014]; Connelly v City of Syracuse , 103 AD3d 1242, 1242 [4th Dept 2013]; cf. O'Banner v County of Sullivan , 16 AD3d 950, 951-952 [3d Dept 2005]). [FN5] Nevertheless, defendant has failed to carry its burden to

2023Indeed, it is well established that a police officer's pursuit of a motorist for a suspected traffic violation qualifies as an emergency operation ( see Thompson v City of New York , 210 AD3d 1031, 1033-1034 [2d Dept 2022]; see also Lacey v City of Syracuse , 144 AD3d 1665 , 1665 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 32 NY3d 913 [2019]; Flynn v Sambuca Taxi, LLC , 123 AD3d 501, 501-502 [1st Dept 2014]; Connelly v City of Syracuse , 103 AD3d 1242, 1242 [4th Dept 2013]; cf. O'Banner v County of Sullivan , 16 AD3d 950, 951-952 [3d Dept 2005]). [FN5] Nevertheless, defendant has failed to carry its burden to

2023Indeed, it is well established that a police officer's pursuit of a motorist for a suspected traffic violation qualifies as an emergency operation ( see Thompson v City of New York , 210 AD3d 1031, 1033-1034 [2d Dept 2022]; see also Lacey v City of Syracuse , 144 AD3d 1665 , 1665 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 32 NY3d 913 [2019]; Flynn v Sambuca Taxi, LLC , 123 AD3d 501, 501-502 [1st Dept 2014]; Connelly v City of Syracuse , 103 AD3d 1242, 1242 [4th Dept 2013]; cf. O'Banner v County of Sullivan , 16 AD3d 950, 951-952 [3d Dept 2005]). [FN5] Nevertheless, defendant has failed to carry its burden to

2023Defendant's submissions did not establish prima facie that DiRusso "engaged in specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by [VTL] § 1104 (b)" ( Reid v City of New York , 148 AD3d 739, 740 [2d Dept 2017]), and that claimants' injuries "result[ed] from the privileged operation of an emergency vehicle" instead of from non-privileged conduct which would be subject to an ordinary negligence standard—a critical distinction that defendant fails to recognize ( Kabir , 16 NY3d at 230 ; see Benn v New York Presbyt.

2023Indeed, it is well established that a police officer's pursuit of a motorist for a suspected traffic violation qualifies as an emergency operation ( see Thompson v City of New York , 210 AD3d 1031, 1033-1034 [2d Dept 2022]; see also Lacey v City of Syracuse , 144 AD3d 1665 , 1665 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 32 NY3d 913 [2019]; Flynn v Sambuca Taxi, LLC , 123 AD3d 501, 501-502 [1st Dept 2014]; Connelly v City of Syracuse , 103 AD3d 1242, 1242 [4th Dept 2013]; cf. O'Banner v County of Sullivan , 16 AD3d 950, 951-952 [3d Dept 2005]). [FN5] Nevertheless, defendant has failed to carry its burden to

2023Indeed, it is well established that a police officer's pursuit of a motorist for a suspected traffic violation qualifies as an emergency operation ( see Thompson v City of New York , 210 AD3d 1031, 1033-1034 [2d Dept 2022]; see also Lacey v City of Syracuse , 144 AD3d 1665 , 1665 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 32 NY3d 913 [2019]; Flynn v Sambuca Taxi, LLC , 123 AD3d 501, 501-502 [1st Dept 2014]; Connelly v City of Syracuse , 103 AD3d 1242, 1242 [4th Dept 2013]; cf. O'Banner v County of Sullivan , 16 AD3d 950, 951-952 [3d Dept 2005]). [FN5] Nevertheless, defendant has failed to carry its burden to

2020Even if defendant, despite his belief that he was in compliance with the regulation by positioning the truck as far from traffic as feasible without getting stuck in wet ground on the median, could have positioned the truck even farther to the left and off of the rumble strips, that failing establishes, at most, a lack of due care under the circumstances, which is insufficient to impose liability under the recklessness standard ( see Green , 299 AD2d at 638 ; Mitchell v State of New York , 108 AD2d 1033, 1034-1035 [3d Dept 1985], lv denied 64 NY2d 611 [1985], appeal dismissed and lv denied 64