Leslie v. Marinello
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury negligence arising from a pedestrian struck by a municipal ambulance; summary judgment standards and the emergency doctrine.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint as against the City of New York and Jennifer Marinello.
The Appellate Division reversed and denied summary judgment, reinstating the claims against the City of New York and Jennifer Marinello.
Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of freedom from fault and did not eliminate triable issues of fact regarding due care, visibility, signal status, speed, and whether the emergency doctrine applied; the record left factual disputes for a jury.
Background
Plaintiff Cassondra Leslie alleged she was struck by an ambulance owned by the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) and operated by defendant Jennifer Marinello while she was crossing at Beach 26th Street and Seagirt Boulevard in Far Rockaway. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Marinello was not at fault and that the emergency doctrine applied. The motion targeted, among others, the City of New York and Marinello. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the motion, dismissing the amended complaint as to those defendants.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County (Chereé A. Buggs, J.), granted that branch of defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the City of New York and Jennifer Marinello.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed the order insofar as appealed from, with costs, and denied that branch of the defendants' motion. The court held defendants did not establish, prima facie, that Marinello was free from fault where evidence raised issues of fact concerning the pedestrian signal, speed, line of sight, and whether she used due care to see and avoid the plaintiff. The court also found issues of fact as to the applicability of the emergency doctrine, including whether Marinello’s conduct contributed to the claimed emergency and whether the plaintiff’s presence in the crosswalk was sudden or reasonably anticipated. Because defendants failed to meet their initial burden, the court did not reach the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposition under Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that defendants seeking summary judgment in pedestrian–vehicle negligence cases must make a strong prima facie showing of no fault; disputes over signal status, speed, visibility, and due care commonly preclude summary disposition. It also underscores that the emergency doctrine is typically a jury question, particularly where the driver’s conduct may have contributed to the situation.
In pedestrian collision cases, summary judgment for a driver—especially one operating an emergency vehicle—will be denied where factual conflicts exist about visibility, due care, and the circumstances of any alleged emergency.