context: $15 Because the instruction could have affected the outcome of the trial, the trial court's error was not harmless.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 958 N.E.2d 72, 75
citation_a.parenthetical: concluding that error in giving sudden emer-geney instruction was not harmless where application of the instruction to the facts presented could have affected the outcome of the trial
citation_a.sentence: See Lifson v. City of Syracuse, 17 N.Y.3d 492, 934 N.Y.S.2d 38, 958 N.E.2d 72, 75 (2011) (concluding that error in giving sudden emer-geney instruction was not harmless where application of the instruction to the facts presented could have affected the outcome of the trial); see also Kendrick, 252 P.3d at 1067 (reversing and remanding for a new trial where trial court erred in giving sudden emergency instruction).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 252 P.3d 1067, 1067
citation_b.parenthetical: reversing and remanding for a new trial where trial court erred in giving sudden emergency instruction
citation_b.sentence: See Lifson v. City of Syracuse, 17 N.Y.3d 492, 934 N.Y.S.2d 38, 958 N.E.2d 72, 75 (2011) (concluding that error in giving sudden emer-geney instruction was not harmless where application of the instruction to the facts presented could have affected the outcome of the trial); see also Kendrick, 252 P.3d at 1067 (reversing and remanding for a new trial where trial court erred in giving sudden emergency instruction).