NY appeals court dismisses Buffalo police chase lawsuit

Listen to this article

In a split decision, a state appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a passenger in a car that crashed while being chased by Buffalo police.

Plaintiff Nikir Brown filed the negligence lawsuit seeking damages for injuries he suffered while a passenger in a vehicle that collided with a car operated by Abdihakim H. Muktar.

The defendants also include the city of Buffalo, the Buffalo Police Department, two Buffalo Police officers, Marquel McCarley, the driver of the car in which Brown was a passenger, and Muktar.

The accident occurred at the intersection of Walden Avenue and Lathrop Street in Buffalo. Traffic approaching Walden from Lathrop had a stop sign, but traffic on Walden Avenue did not.

Muktar was traveling west on Walden and approaching Lathrop, while McCarley was fleeing police on Lathrop, approaching Walden Avenue.

McCarley ran the stop sign and collided with Muktar’s car.

Muktar moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against him.

In October 2024, state Supreme Court Justice John DelMonte denied the motion.

In a 3-2 vote, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, reversed DelMonte’s decision, granted Muktar’s motion, and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against Muktar.

“We agree with defendant that the court erred in denying his motion,” the Fourth Department wrote.

A driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield to the driver with the right-of-way, the majority wrote.

“Although a driver with the right-of-way has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid a collision a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle that has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision,” the court wrote.

Muktar met his burden of establishing that he “was operating his vehicle in a lawful and prudent manner and that there was nothing (he) could have done to avoid the collision,” the panel wrote.

The panel found that Brown and the other defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Justices Tracey A. Bannister and Henry J. Nowak dissented and voted to affirm.

“Although defendant Abdihakim H. Muktar was entitled to anticipate that the driver of the Honda would stop at the stop sign and yield the right-of-way to him, in moving for summary judgment, defendant had the burden of establishing that he was free of comparative fault,” they wrote.

Muktar submitted deposition testimony, in which he claimed that McCarley’s car was less than one foot from his vehicle when he first saw it, but he also testified that he saw the Honda 30 or 40 seconds before the impact, they noted.

Muktar also claimed at one point that the collision happened “instantly,” after he first saw the Honda.

“Upon questioning by his own attorney, and in explaining the change in his testimony, defendant added, ‘I did not see anything … It was just a big bang I heard,” the dissent wrote.

“The inconsistencies in defendant’s own sworn testimony thus raise questions of fact,” the minority wrote.

“Defendant failed to meet his burden on his motion inasmuch as his own submissions raised triable issues of fact whether he was negligent,” the minority wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035