Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rivera v. New York City Transit Authoritygreen2 sentences2007Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 326-327 [1991]). 2003Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 326-327 [1991]; Fuller v Brady, 242 AD2d 522 [1997]). | 2 | 4 |
Caristo v. Sanzonegreen2 sentences2007“A party is entitled to a charge on the emergency doctrine when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to that party, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that his or her conduct was the product of a sudden and unforeseeable occurrence not of his or her own making” (Cascio v Metz, 305 AD2d 354, 356 [2003]; see Caristo v Sanzone, 96 NY2d 172, 175 [2001]; Rivera v New York City Tr. 2003A party is entitled to a charge on the emergency doctrine when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to that party, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that his or her conduct was the product of a sudden and unforeseeable occurrence not of his or her own making (see Caristo v Sanzone, 96 NY2d 172, 175 [2001]; Rivera v New York City Tr. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences1992Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 326-327 ; see also, Ferrer v Harris, 55 NY2d 285, 292-293 , mod 56 NY2d 737 ). 1986Defendant driver was confronted by a sudden and unforeseen occurrence not of her own making; thus the question of whether her conduct was reasonable in the face of an emergency was properly one for the jury (Ferrer v Harris, 55 NY2d 285, 292-293 , mod 56 NY2d 737 ). | 1 | 2 |
Ferrer v. Harrisgreen2 sentences1992Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 326-327 ; see also, Ferrer v Harris, 55 NY2d 285, 292-293 , mod 56 NY2d 737 ). 1986Defendant driver was confronted by a sudden and unforeseen occurrence not of her own making; thus the question of whether her conduct was reasonable in the face of an emergency was properly one for the jury (Ferrer v Harris, 55 NY2d 285, 292-293 , mod 56 NY2d 737 ). | 1 | 2 |
Cascio v. Metzgreen1 sentence2007“A party is entitled to a charge on the emergency doctrine when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to that party, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that his or her conduct was the product of a sudden and unforeseeable occurrence not of his or her own making” (Cascio v Metz, 305 AD2d 354, 356 [2003]; see Caristo v Sanzone, 96 NY2d 172, 175 [2001]; Rivera v New York City Tr. | 1 | 1 |
Holtermann v. Cochettigreen1 sentence2003“A party is entitled to a charge on the emergency doctrine when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to that party, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the party’s conduct was the product of a sudden and unforeseeable occurrence not of the party’s own making” (Holtermann v Cochetti, 295 AD2d 680, 681 [2002] [citation omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fuller v. Brady
neutral
1 sentence2003Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 326-327 [1991]; Fuller v Brady, 242 AD2d 522 [1997]). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Kuci v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority
green
1 sentence2002Operating Auth., 88 NY2d 923, 924 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hardy v. Sicuranza
green
1 sentence1997Since the defendant was not entitled to benefit from a charge on the emergency doctrine, the plaintiffs are entitled to a new trial on the issue of liability (see, Hardy v Sicuranza, 133 AD2d 138, 139 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Donaldson v. Kilgore
green
1 sentence1997“A party is entitled to a charge on the emergency doctrine when, viewing the proof in the light most favorable to [him] there is a reasonable view of the [proof] that [his] conduct was the product of a sudden and unforeseeable occurrence not of [his] own making” (Donaldson v Kilgore, 187 AD2d 1018, 1019 ; see, Rivera v New York City Tr. | 1 | 1997–1997 |