Scolpini v Town of Greenburgh
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Liability of emergency vehicle operators under Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) § 1104 [qualifiedly exempts drivers of emergency vehicles from certain traffic laws during an emergency operation and limits liability to conduct showing reckless disregard].
The Supreme Court, Westchester County denied Falcone’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him.
The denial of summary judgment; the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint against Falcone.
Dashcam and deposition evidence showed Falcone was responding to a dispatch, slowed to 5–10 mph, activated emergency lights, and repeatedly sounded the siren before proceeding against a red light; this did not amount to reckless disregard. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue. The court therefore did not reach the alternative serious-injury argument under Insurance Law § 5102(d) [defines 'serious injury' under New York's No-Fault Law].
Background
On June 7, 2020, while responding to a dispatch call, police officer Falcone approached an intersection against a red signal, slowed to approximately 5–10 mph, activated his emergency lights, and sounded the siren multiple times. As he proceeded east through the intersection, Scolpini, traveling north with a green light, struck Falcone’s vehicle. Scolpini sued in November 2021. Falcone moved for summary judgment, arguing he was not at fault under VTL § 1104’s emergency-operation privileges and, alternatively, that Scolpini did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.) denied Falcone’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversing on the law, the Appellate Division held Falcone established prima facie that he was engaged in an emergency operation and that his conduct did not rise to reckless disregard. Relying on his deposition and dashcam footage showing a significant slowdown, activated lights, and repeated siren use before entering on red, the court found plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Falcone and did not reach the remaining contentions, including Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Legal Significance
The decision reaffirms that, under VTL § 1104, emergency responders face liability only for conduct amounting to reckless disregard, a standard higher than ordinary negligence. Objective video evidence can conclusively establish the absence of reckless disregard and warrant summary judgment, obviating the need to reach no-fault serious-injury issues.
Emergency responders who slow, use lights and sirens, and proceed cautiously against a red light are generally protected from liability absent proof of reckless disregard under VTL § 1104.