Lawsuit against NY state trooper over collision reinstated

In a split decision, a state appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit against a New York State Police trooper who collided with another car while responding to a call.

In April 2022, in Buffalo, state Supreme Court Justice Daniel Furlong granted a defense motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Cort, Fourth Department, reversed Furlong’s ruling and reinstated the complaint.

Voting with the majority were justices Tracey A. Bannister, Mark A. Montour, and E. Jeannette Ogden. Justices Erin M. Peradotto and Stephen K. Lindley.

Plaintiff Cody Ray Gernatt filed the lawsuit seeking damages for injuries he suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The crash happened when New York State Police Trooper Michael W. Gregoire was responding to a report of a burglar alarm.

Gregoire’s vehicle collided with Gernatt’s vehicle when Gernatt made a left turn in front of Gregoire at an intersection.

Gregoire filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that he was operating the police vehicle while involved in an emergency operation, so he was not being reckless as a matter of law.

Furlong granted the motion and the Fourth Department reversed that ruling.

The Fourth Department agreed with Gernatt’s appellate attorney that Gregoire failed to meet his initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that his actions did not rise to the level of reckless disregard for the safety of others.

“While we certainly recognize that the reckless disregard standard is a heightened standard from ordinary negligence, the reckless disregard standard still retains and recognizes the potential for liability as a protection for the general public against disproportionate, overreactive conduct,” the majority wrote.

“The nature of the call … is relevant in determining whether a responding officer’s conduct was in reckless disregard for the safety of others,” the court wrote.

“Other factors that are relevant in determining whether an officer’s conduct amounted to reckless disregard include the nature of the road, traffic and weather conditions, the time of day, the speed of the officer’s vehicle, and whether the officer followed departmental guidelines,” they wrote.

Gernatt testified that he began his left turn when he first noticed Gregoire’s vehicle approaching. Gernatt claims that Gregoire failed to yield to plaintiff’s right-of-way.

Gernatt testified that Gregoire was coming toward his vehicle at a “high rate of speed” and did not have on any headlights, siren or flashing lights.

There was evidence that Gregoire attempted to brake before hitting Gernatt’s car and that Gregoire was traveling 70 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone just prior to the collision, and 47 mph at the time of impact.

Gregoire testified that he was “not sure whether he was responding to an emergency situation and only knew at the time that he was responding to “an alarm.”

“We conclude that defendant’s own submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact whether defendant acted with reckless disregard under the circumstances,” the majority wrote.

“We … conclude that the court should have denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint regardless of the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposing papers,” they wrote.

Peradotto and Lindley voted to affirm the lower court ruling.

“In our view the majority’s determination in this case disregards materially indistinguishable case law and improperly dilutes the reckless disregard standard of liability, which is designed to constitute a higher standard than that applicable to ordinary negligence claims,” they wrote.

Gregoire had the right-of-way and Gernatt was later convicted of failing to yield the right-of-way.

The minority agreed that the proper standard to be applied is “reckless disregard for the safety of others,” rather than ordinary negligence.

“Unlike the majority, however, we conclude that defendant also met his initial burden of establishing that his conduct did not rise to the level of recklessness required of the driver of an emergency vehicle in order for liability to attach, and in response plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact.”

“Thus, in our view, the court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and we would therefore affirm.”

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035