Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

August 26, 2021

Second Department Makes a Turn From Lower Court's Collision Decision

In a case involving a collision between a truck and a bicyclist, the Appellate Division, Second Department ruled that the lower court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the truck driver was required to have signaled his intent to turn at least 100 feet before the turn.

In Moore v. New York, the plaintiff alleged that a truck ran her over while making a right turn, but the truck’s turn signal was not on when the plaintiff rode her bicycle alongside the stopped truck at a traffic light. The truck driver claimed that he put his signal on while at the stop light, and when the light turned green, he made the turn as the plaintiff, unseen to the truck driver, proceeded straight. At trial, the truck driver argued that because his vehicle was stopped at a traffic light, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(d), which states that a parked vehicle does not have to signal its movement 100 feet before turning, was applicable. The trial court agreed and charged the jury accordingly.

The jury found that the defendant was not negligent and a judgment was entered in his favor, dismissing the complaint. The Second Department reversed the decision, and ruled that the defendant was, in fact, required to signal his intention to turn right 100 feet before the turn pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(b) because there were no exceptions for vehicles temporarily stopped at a traffic light.

When language in a statute is clear and unambiguous, it should be interpreted to give effect to the plain and simple meaning of the words. The statute, simply stated, required the defendant to signal his intention to turn at least 100 feet before the actual turn. Moreover, the court clarified the difference between a parked vehicle and a vehicle temporarily stopped at a traffic light.

The court reinstated the complaint and is remitting the matter to the Supreme Court in Queens County for a new trial.

The Moore decision reinforces the long-standing principle in New York State: that courts are obligated to interpret a statute to determine the meaning of the intent of the legislature, but when a statute’s wording is direct and apparent, its plain meaning must be applied. The decision will no doubt have an impact on transportation, trucking, and vehicular and automobile matters, but it also serves as assurance of the courts’ continued obligation to construe the words of a statute per their plain and obvious meaning.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Elizabeth Vulaj, associate, at; Matthew Larkin, partner, at; or another member of the Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area.


Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media


CPLR Article 52 Is Exclusive Vehicle to Challenge Use of Enforcement Procedures


HHS OCR Issues Guidance on the Use of Remote Communication Technologies for Audio-Only Telehealth Services


ADA Accessibility Lawsuits: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Braille Gift Card Complaints


Subchapter Five Debt Limit Update: What Was Down Is Heading Back Up!


President Biden Uses Production Defense Act Authority to Suspend Tariffs on Solar Imports From China and Other Countries Amid Ongoing Commerce Probe


Unwitnessed Fall From Ladder Amounts to Mere Speculation of Liability Under Labor Law

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out