New York's Move Over Act requires drivers to shift lanes for a stopped emergency vehicle when it's safe to do so. But what happens when a driver says she genuinely believed changing lanes wasn't safe — and the officer disagrees? A 2016 Cohoes City Court case answered that question for the first time.

The Facts of the Case

Sergeant Anthony Pucci of the Cohoes Police Department was patrolling I-787 when he spotted another marked police car pulled onto the shoulder, lights activated, issuing a citation. Pucci pulled in behind it — both for the other officer's safety and to make sure passing traffic moved over, as required by the Move Over Act, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1144-a.

Watching in his rear-view mirror, Pucci saw a gray van, driven by Jacqueline Krahforst, pass both police cars in the right lane without moving over. He testified there was some traffic in the left lane, but "plenty of room" for her to merge at all times. He pulled her over and issued a citation.

Krahforst told a different story. She said she'd been driving behind a large truck that blocked her view of the police cars until she was nearly on top of them. Once she saw them, she braked, checked her speedometer, and checked her mirror — but seeing another car in the left lane, she didn't feel it was safe to merge. Instead, she stayed in the right side of her lane, slowed down, and kept watching the officer as she passed.

The Legal Question

Section 1144-a had never been interpreted by a New York court before this case. The core question: does the statute's "due care" standard turn on what a reasonably prudent driver would have done, or on the driver's own sincere belief about whether a lane change was safe?

Why Her Subjective Belief Didn't Carry the Day

The court found the Sergeant's testimony more concrete than Krahforst's: he described specific distance and timing — room to merge "at all times" — while her testimony centered on how she felt, without specifics about how far away or how fast the car in the other lane actually was. On that record, the court found a reasonably prudent driver would have been able to merge safely.

Two additional facts mattered a great deal:

• She never signaled. The court treated her failure to activate a turn signal as circumstantial evidence she never actually intended to move over — and noted that signaling would likely have prompted other drivers to make room.
• Her obstructed view didn't excuse the violation. The court rejected the argument that a truck blocked her sightline, both because the physical layout gave her ample distance to react once the truck cleared, and because due care includes an obligation to actually see what's there to be seen.

What This Means for a Move Over Act Defense

Krahforst points toward the facts that actually move the needle in these cases:

• What specifics can the officer testify to? Vague claims about "some traffic" carry less weight than concrete testimony about distance and timing — and the same is true in reverse for a driver's account.
• Did the driver signal? A turn signal is evidence of an attempt to comply; its absence can be read as evidence of the opposite.
• Was there truly no reasonable opportunity to react? A genuinely obstructed view can matter, but only if the physical layout of the stop didn't leave enough distance and time to react once the obstruction cleared.