## Facts

- Krishna Dalal sought damages for injuries from a two-vehicle collision at Booth Street and 66th Avenue in Queens.
- Dalal testified he stopped at a stop sign on 66th Avenue, looked both ways about one block, proceeded into the intersection, and was struck on the driver’s side while halfway through; he did not see the other vehicle before impact.
- Alicia Ramdhani-Mack testified she saw Dalal’s vehicle 10–15 feet from the intersection, observed it behind the stop sign but moving, and estimated 5–7 seconds elapsed before collision; she tried to swerve but could not avoid impact.
- Ramdhani-Mack testified she was nearsighted, needed prescription glasses, and was not wearing them at the time of the accident, though she claimed she could still see while driving.
- Ramdhani-Mack had previously testified her driver’s license required corrective lenses while driving.
- No evidence showed either driver was speeding.
- Before trial, the claim against the City of New York was discontinued; the case was tried to a jury only against Ramdhani-Mack.
- The jury found Dalal solely negligent and the sole proximate cause; judgment was entered dismissing the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct that operating a vehicle without required corrective lenses, in violation of N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 509(3), constitutes negligence per se if unexcused.
2. Whether the trial court erred by precluding cross-examination of the defendant about the corrective-lenses license restriction and her failure to comply.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the judgment for Ramdhani-Mack and granted a new trial, with costs to abide the event.
- The trial court should have charged that an unexcused statutory violation of N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 509(3) may constitute negligence as a matter of law.
- The trial court also erred by preventing cross-examination concerning the corrective-lenses restriction and the defendant’s noncompliance.
- The errors were not harmless given the verdict assigning all fault to the plaintiff.

## Legal Principles

- An unexcused violation of a statutory standard of care, when relevant to the conduct at issue, constitutes negligence per se.
- N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 509(3) bars operation of a motor vehicle in violation of a restriction on the driver’s license; a corrective-lenses restriction is a safety-related standard governing driving conduct.
- Evidence that a driver violated a license restriction is admissible where it bears on the driver’s ability to operate safely and on fault and causation; limiting cross-examination that prevents proof of such a violation can be reversible error.
- A refusal to instruct on negligence per se, combined with exclusion of proof of the statutory violation, warrants a new trial where it could have affected the allocation of negligence and proximate cause.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ordered a new trial because the jury was not permitted to consider whether the defendant’s unexcused failure to wear corrective lenses required by her license was negligence per se under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509(3), and the plaintiff was improperly barred from cross-examining the defendant on that violation; these errors could have altered the verdict on fault and causation.


Dalal v. City of New York, 262 A.D.2d 596, 692 N.Y.S.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1999)