Hendrickson v. Philbor Motors, Inc.Hendrickson v. Philbor Motors, Inc.
` - `` - `` - `“Under the emergency doctrine...` - `...` - `
Although the defendant Roseanne Hendrickson...` - `...` - `
Dillon, J.P., Lott, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
` - ``. Let‘s look at the “Short form” for Williams on 813. `Williams v City of New York, 88 AD3d at 990` The full cite was `Williams v City of New York, 88 AD3d 989 [2011]` earlier on the same page. So starting page is 989. Pinpoint is 990. One detail: page 812 mentions `812` at the top. The caption for Hendrickson is at the bottom. The citation `[954 NYS2d 898]` is after Action No. 2. Let‘s proceed. ```html“Under the emergency doctrine, ‘when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context’ (Miloscia v New York City Bd. of Educ., 70 AD3d 904, 905 [2010], quoting Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327 [1991]; see Williams v City of New York, 88 AD3d 989 [2011]). “This is not to say that an emergency automatically absolves one from liability for his [or her] conduct. The standard then still remains that of a reasonable [person] under the given circumstances, except that the circumstances have changed” (Ferrer v Harris, 55 NY2d 285, 293 [1982]; see Pawlukiewicz v Boisson, 275 AD2d 446, 447 [2000]). “Both the existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a party‘s response thereto will ordinarily present questions of fact” (Williams v City of New York, 88 AD3d at 990; see Crawford-Dunk v MV Transp., Inc., 83 AD3d 764 [2011]).
Although the defendant Roseanne Hendrickson established that she was confronted with an emergency situation when the tire of the vehicle she was driving suddenly blew out, she failed to meet her prima facie burden of establishing that her subsequent actions were reasonable as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]). Accordingly, that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims asserted against her by the defendant Cooper Tire and Rubber Company (hereinafter Cooper Tire) should have been denied. In light of this determination, we need not examine the sufficiency of the papers submitted in opposition to her motion (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Cooper Tire‘s remaining contention is not properly before this Court. Dillon, J.P., Lott, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
``` Wait, I need to check the exact capitalization of “Philbor Motors, Inc.” etc. In caption: “PHILBOR MOTORS, INC.” In OCR: “Philbor Motors, Inc.” Image shows it‘s partially capitalized or small caps. I will stick to what‘s in the text or standard capitalization for the case-name field. The prompt says: “Preserve formatting exactly (dates, case name capitalization)“. Wait, the prompt also says “Bluebook-style short name... omit ‘et al.’ and procedural phrases“. `shortName=“Hendrickson v. Philbor Motors, Inc.“` fits. Final check on the signature block: “Cooper Tire‘s remaining contention is not properly before this Court. Dillon, J.P., Lott, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.” It looks like a regular paragraph ending with the judges. I will wrap it in a signature div if it looks like one. On 812, the concurrence was on its own line: “Florio, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.” On 814, it‘s on the same line as the last sentence. I‘ll put it in its own div. Wait, checking the image for 814. “Cooper Tire’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court. Dillon, J.P., Lott, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.” Yes, it‘s on one line. One more thing: The case info should include the court. I‘ll use “Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department” or as short as possible. Re-checking the quotes on 813: The image shows double curly quotes: `“Under the emergency doctrine...` The quote ends after `[2011]).` Then another starts: `“This is not to say... changed”` Then another: `“Both the existence... [2011]).` I will use straight quotes. Wait, the quote marks inside the blockquote: `“Under the emergency doctrine, ‘when an actor... context’ (Miloscia... [2011]).` `“This is not to say... changed” (Ferrer... [2000]).` `“Both the existence... fact” (Williams... [2011]).` All citations are part of the quoted material or follow immediately. I‘ll structure the blockquote correctly. Actually, the citations are *outside* the inner quotes but *inside* the outer quotes? Let‘s see: `...emergency context’ (Miloscia... [2011]).` The outer quote `“` starts before `Under` and the OCR doesn‘t show where it ends before the next quote. Actually, it looks like three distinct blockquoted sentences/sections. I‘ll treat the whole thing as one blockquote since they are consecutive and indented. Wait, “812“, “813“, “814” are the page numbers. I will place the markers. One thing: I missed the citation `[954 NYS2d 898]`. I will put it in citation. Let‘s refine the case info and HTML. ```html“Under the emergency doctrine, ‘when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context’ (Miloscia v New York City Bd. of Educ., 70 AD3d 904, 905 [2010], quoting Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327 [1991]; see Williams v City of New York, 88 AD3d 989 [2011]). “This is not to say that an emergency automatically absolves one from liability for his [or her] conduct. The standard then still remains that of a reasonable [person] under the given circumstances, except that the circumstances have changed” (Ferrer v Harris, 55 NY2d 285, 293 [1982]; see Pawlukiewicz v Boisson, 275 AD2d 446, 447 [2000]). “Both the existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a party‘s response thereto will ordinarily present questions of fact” (Williams v City of New York, 88 AD3d at 990; see Crawford-Dunk v MV Transp., Inc., 83 AD3d 764 [2011]).
Although the defendant Roseanne Hendrickson established that she was confronted with an emergency situation when the tire of the vehicle she was driving suddenly blew out, she failed to meet her prima facie burden of establishing that her subsequent actions were reasonable as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]). Accordingly, that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims asserted against her by the defendant Cooper Tire and Rubber Company (hereinafter Cooper Tire) should have been denied. In light of this determination, we need not examine the sufficiency of the papers submitted in opposition to her motion (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).
Cooper Tire‘s remaining contention is not properly before this Court.
``` One last check on the text “reason-able” etc. OCR page 2: “reason-able and prudent“, “reason-ableness“. Rejoined: “reasonable and prudent“, “reasonableness“. OCR page 3: “determi-nation“. Rejoined: “determination“. This is correct. I will omit the Court name from Case Info if I am not 100% sure, but the judges Dillon, Lott, Roman, and Cohen are all Second Department judges around 2012. The reporter AD3d is the standard for NY App Div. I‘ll use `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`. One check on quotes in blockquote: `“Under the emergency doctrine...context’ (...). “This is not to say...changed” (...). “Both the existence...fact” (...).` The quotation marks seem to encompass the citation in some places and not in others. In the image: `“Under the emergency doctrine, ‘... context’ (Miloscia ... [2011]). “This is... changed” (Ferrer... [2000]). “Both the... fact” (Williams... [2011]).` The citation is outside the closing quote of the quoted text but inside the outer quotes of the paragraph? Actually, it looks like a series of quotations from different cases. I will use straight quotes as they appear in the visual. ```htmlDillon, J.P., Lott, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
``` Wait, in the OCR for page 2, there is a `”` after context. `reasonable and prudent in the emergency context’ ”` And then `(Miloscia ...)`. This confirms the structure: Quote ends, then citation. Then next quote starts. Final verification: The prompt says “Output raw HTML only. No code fences. No commentary.” The first page (812) contains the very end of one case and the caption of the next. I must skip the text of the first case. The third page (814) contains the end of the second case and the caption of a third case. I must skip the caption/body of the third case. The only case to fully format is “Hendrickson v. Philbor Motors, Inc.” One detail: `Action No. 1.` and `Action No. 2.` in the caption. I will keep them exactly as they are. ```html“Under the emergency doctrine, ‘when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context’ (Miloscia v New York City Bd. of Educ., 70 AD3d 904, 905 [2010], quoting Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327 [1991]; see Williams v City of New York, 88 AD3d 989 [2011]). “This is not to say that an emergency automatically absolves one from liability for his [or her] conduct. The standard then still remains that of a reasonable [person] under the given circumstances, except that the circumstances have changed” (Ferrer v Harris, 55 NY2d 285, 293 [1982]; see Pawlukiewicz v Boisson, 275 AD2d 446, 447 [2000]). “Both the existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a party‘s response thereto will ordinarily present questions of fact” (Williams v City of New York, 88 AD3d at 990; see Crawford-Dunk v MV Transp., Inc., 83 AD3d 764 [2011]).
“Under the emergency doctrine, ‘when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context‘” (Miloscia v New York City Bd. of Educ., 70 AD3d 904, 905 [2010], quoting Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327 [1991]; see Williams v City of New York, 88 AD3d 989 [2011]). “This is not to say that an emergency automatically absolves one from liability for his [or her] conduct. The standard then still remains that of a reasonable [person] under the given circumstances, except that the circumstances have changed” (Ferrer v Harris, 55 NY2d 285, 293 [1982]; see Pawlukiewicz v Boisson, 275 AD2d 446, 447 [2000]). “Both the existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a party‘s response thereto will ordinarily present questions of fact” (Williams v City of New York, 88 AD3d at 990; see Crawford-Dunk v MV Transp., Inc., 83 AD3d 764 [2011]).
Although the defendant Roseanne Hendrickson established that she was confronted with an emergency situation when the tire of the vehicle she was driving suddenly blew out, she failed to meet her prima facie burden of establishing that her subsequent actions were reasonable as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]). Accordingly, that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims asserted against her by the defendant Cooper Tire and Rubber Company (hereinafter Cooper Tire) should have been denied. In light of this determination, we need not examine the sufficiency of the papers submitted in opposition to her motion (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).
Cooper Tire‘s remaining contention is not properly before this Court.
``` One small detail: `[954 NYS2d 898]` is in brackets in the source. I‘ll include it. Actually, the prompt says “preserve all content exactly“. I will include the caption exactly as it appears on 812 in the `midpage-case-name`. Wait, the prompt says `shortName` attribute uses Bluebook-style, but the text inside the tag should be the name as it appears. I‘ll keep the brackets if they were part of the name/citation combo in the caption. Double check: “Action No. 1.) William Malone, Plaintiff v Philbor Motors, Inc., Doing Business as Hempstead Ford, et al., Defendants, Cooper Tire and Rubber Company, Appellant, and Rosanne Hendrickson, Respondent. (Action No. 2.) [954 NYS2d 898]” Actually, the citation is better placed in `Dillon, J.P., Lott, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
`. Final check on court: I‘ll stick to `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`. Done.