Narrative Opinion Summary
The order was modified unanimously and affirmed without costs based on the following conclusions: Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c(8) explicitly prohibits evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim that is based on noncompliance with § 1229-c. Consequently, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, referencing Baker v. Keller and Hamilton v. Purser. The remaining arguments presented were found to lack merit. The appeal originated from the Supreme Court in Chautauqua County, presided over by Judge Gerace, regarding a summary judgment. The panel included Justices Denman, Hayes, Callahan, Doerr, and Boehm.
Legal Issues Addressed
Evidence Exclusion Under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c(8)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c(8) to prohibit evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim due to noncompliance with this statute, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.
Reasoning: Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c(8) explicitly prohibits evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim that is based on noncompliance with § 1229-c.
Judicial Consensus and Cost Allocationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The order was unanimously modified and affirmed by the appellate court without imposing costs, reflecting judicial consensus on the matter.
Reasoning: The order was modified unanimously and affirmed without costs based on the following conclusions.
Summary Judgment Appropriatenesssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that summary judgment was appropriate in favor of the defendant, as the plaintiff's evidence was inadmissible under the applicable law.
Reasoning: Consequently, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, referencing Baker v. Keller and Hamilton v. Purser.