Village of Briarcliff Manor v Village of Ossining
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Municipal liability and police pursuit liability; reimbursement under General Municipal Law § 207-c(6) [permits a municipality to recover from a third-party tortfeasor the salary, benefits, and expenses it paid to a police officer injured in the line of duty due to the tortfeasor’s negligent or reckless conduct].
Granted summary judgment to the Village of Ossining and Officer Encarnacion, dismissing the reimbursement claim against them.
The order granting summary judgment in favor of the Village of Ossining and Encarnacion.
The record raised triable issues of fact as to whether Officer Encarnacion acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others during a high-speed pursuit and whether that conduct was a proximate cause of Officer Corsi’s injuries; therefore, the movants failed to eliminate all material factual disputes.
Background
In October 2016, Officer Nicole Corsi of the Village of Briarcliff Manor was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Nathaniel J. Hester during a police pursuit initiated and continued by Officer Juan Encarnacion of the Village of Ossining. The pursuit proceeded at high speeds through residential and commercial areas, during which Hester struck another vehicle and nearly hit pedestrians before colliding with Corsi’s patrol car. The Village of Briarcliff Manor sued, seeking reimbursement under General Municipal Law § 207-c(6) for salary, benefits, and expenses paid to Corsi.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the motion by the Village of Ossining and Encarnacion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint as against them.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed and denied the motion. Citing the reckless-disregard standard applicable to emergency-response vehicle operation, the court held that deposition testimony (from Encarnacion, Hester, and Corsi) describing a high-speed chase through populated areas, a collision with another vehicle, and near-misses with pedestrians created triable issues of fact regarding reckless disregard and proximate cause. Because the movants failed to make a prima facie showing, the motion should have been denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that in police pursuit cases, whether an officer acted with reckless disregard and whether the pursuit proximately caused a third party’s injuries are often fact questions precluding summary judgment. In municipal reimbursement actions under GML § 207-c(6), defendants must conclusively negate reckless disregard and causation to obtain dismissal.
Evidence of a high-speed pursuit through populated areas with collisions and near-misses presents jury questions on reckless disregard and proximate cause, making summary judgment inappropriate.