Decision Day: New York Injury Case Law
New appellate decisions on New York injury law, reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen.
New York’s appellate courts release decisions several days a week. On release days, we read the official decisions and pick out the ones that matter to injured people and their lawyers: rulings that change the law, split from other courts, or teach a practical lesson. Each entry gives the bottom line, the facts, and the holding in the court’s own words, followed by our view, clearly labeled. Every entry links to the official text of the decision.
Decision Day summarizes and comments on published court decisions. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Unless an entry says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in these cases.
32 decisions
-
Crash With a Driver Allegedly Working for Uber: Claims Against Uber Go Forward Because the Uber Companies Did Not Prove He Was an Independent Contractor (Rivera v M. GS Talukder, 2d Dept 2026)
A company can be held responsible for a crash caused by its employee on the job, but generally not for one caused by an independent contractor, and which one a driver was is usually a question for the jury. Here, the Second Department reversed the dismissal of an injured woman’s claims against three Uber companies, holding that they failed to eliminate all questions of fact about whether the driver was working as an independent contractor, rather than as their employee, when the collision happened.
-
Fall on the Riegelmann Boardwalk: City’s “No Prior Written Notice” Defense Fails Because Its Records Search Was Not Shown to Be Complete (Young v City of New York, 2d Dept 2026)
A New York City law generally makes the City liable for a defect in its streets and sidewalks only if it had prior written notice of it, but to have a claim dismissed on that ground before trial, the City must first show that it had none. Here, the Second Department reversed the dismissal of a man’s claim for a fall on the Riegelmann Boardwalk in Brooklyn, because the City’s affidavit did not say unequivocally that its records search found no prior written notice, and did not show that all the relevant records were searched.
-
Intersection Crash Gets a New Trial: A Driver With the Right of Way Must Still Use Reasonable Care, and Photos of the Vehicle Damage Should Have Been Admitted (Pruessen v Richard Capobianco, Inc., 2d Dept 2026)
A driver with the right of way may assume that others will yield, but still must use reasonable care to avoid hitting a vehicle that is already in the intersection. Here, the Second Department reinstated a driver’s case that had been dismissed at the close of her evidence at trial, and held that photographs of the damage to both vehicles should have been admitted at the trial on fault.
-
Rear-End Crash Goes to Trial: Other Driver Swore the Car Ahead Stopped Suddenly “for No Apparent Reason” (Ruiz v Town of Southampton, 2d Dept 2026)
In New York, a driver who rear-ends a stopped or stopping vehicle is presumed negligent and must give a non-negligent explanation for the crash. Here, the Second Department affirmed the denial of an injured driver’s motion for summary judgment on fault, because the other driver’s sworn statement that the plaintiff made “a sudden stop for no apparent reason” conflicted with the plaintiff’s account.
-
Underinsured Motorist (SUM) Coverage Did Not Apply Because the Other Vehicle’s Policies, Including an Umbrella, Exceeded the Injured Driver’s Own Liability Limits (Matter of Erie Ins. Co. v Rodriguez, 2d Dept 2026)
Supplementary underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage on your own auto policy applies only when the bodily injury liability coverage on the vehicle that caused the crash is less than the liability limits of your own policy, and the law counts all of that vehicle’s bodily injury policies. Here, the Second Department affirmed an order permanently stopping a driver’s SUM arbitration, because the other vehicle’s primary and umbrella policies together had higher limits than the $1,000,000 liability limit on his own policy.
-
400-Pound Beam and a Wet Floor: A Worker’s Testimony That He Also Slipped Sends His Labor Law 240(1) Claim to Trial (Mema v Procida Constr. Corp., 1st Dept 2026)
Labor Law 240(1) may cover a worker hurt when a heavy object he is carrying falls even a short distance, but if the record shows another possible cause, the question may be left for trial. Here, the First Department modified the order to deny a worker’s motion for summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1), because he testified that his foot slipped on a wet floor within a split second of a 400-pound beam falling onto it and that he did not know which happened first.
-
Did the Accident Happen? Defense Evidence, Including a Biomechanics Expert, Sends a Worker’s Labor Law 240(1) Claim to Trial (Gonzalez v Chatsworth Bldrs. LLC, 1st Dept 2026)
An injured worker may win on liability without a trial even if no one saw the accident, as long as nothing in the record contradicts his account or raises a question about his credibility. Here, the First Department modified the order to deny a worker’s motion for summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1), because a sign-out sheet, 17 statements from people at the project, a biomechanics expert, and three examining doctors, taken together, raised questions whether the accident happened at all, whether it happened as he described, and whether it caused his injuries.
-
Fall Blamed on Low Lighting in a Restaurant: The Landlord Is Out of the Case Because the Staff Set the Lights (Mella v Russian Samovar, Inc., 1st Dept 2026)
A landlord that has leased out a property, and is responsible under the lease for structural repairs, is generally not responsible for a condition that is not structural. Here, the First Department affirmed the dismissal of the claims against a restaurant’s landlord, because the low lighting the plaintiff blamed for the fall was set by the restaurant’s employees, and the plaintiff’s expert did not connect the other conditions listed to the fall.
-
Left Turn Around a Truck Blocking the Intersection: Turning Driver’s Claim Reinstated (Sanchez-Rodriguez v Bruce, 1st Dept 2026)
A driver turning left must generally yield to oncoming traffic, but a driver with a green light must also yield to other traffic lawfully within the intersection, so a left turn does not automatically mean the turning driver was at fault. Here, the First Department reinstated a left-turning driver’s claim because the record did not conclusively show which driver had to yield after a concrete truck blocked the intersection.
-
Defense Neuropsychological Exam: Plaintiff’s Lawyer Kept Out, but a Psychologist of His Choosing May Observe (Hall v Trustees of Columbia Univ., 1st Dept 2026)
A person who sues for injuries may generally have a lawyer or other representative present at an examination by the defense’s doctor, but a court may limit that when the presence would keep the examiner from conducting a meaningful examination. Here, the First Department upheld an order, based on the defense expert’s unrebutted affidavit, keeping the plaintiff’s lawyer out of a defense neuropsychological examination, while allowing a licensed clinical psychologist of the plaintiff’s choosing to observe.
-
Scaffold Fall: Worker Wins on Liability as the Court Rejects a Defense Biomechanical Expert’s Opinion (Latazela v Compass Six Owner LLC, 1st Dept 2026)
An expert’s opinion that disregards consistent evidence that the injured person fell and was hurt, or does not explain how the expert reached it, may not be enough to require a trial. Here, the First Department affirmed partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) for a worker who fell 11 to 12 feet from a plank on a scaffold that moved, rejecting the defendants’ biomechanical expert’s opinion as speculative.
-
Suing the Right Owner in Time: Claim Dismissed Because the Property’s Owners Were Added Too Late (Gonzalez v Country Manor Apts., 1st Dept 2026)
In New York, an injured person generally has three years to sue, and that time can run out if the lawsuit names the wrong party and the right one is not brought in before the deadline. Here, the First Department affirmed the dismissal of the claim against the companies that owned the property where the plaintiff alleged he was hurt, because he did not seek to add them until almost four years after the accident.
-
Car Crash Injury Claims Go Forward: A Biomechanical Engineer’s Report Could Not Replace a Medical Opinion (Bonilla-Acosta v Max Servs. Corp., 2d Dept 2026)
In a New York car accident case, a defendant that asks the court to dismiss an injury claim because there was no “serious injury” must first make that showing with competent medical evidence. Here, the Second Department affirmed the denial of two defendants’ motion, holding that their biomechanical engineer could speak to the forces in the crash but did not show he was qualified to give a medical opinion on whether the accident caused the injuries.
-
Porter Struck by Loose Plywood: No Scaffold Law Claim, but Labor Law 200 Reaches Beyond Construction Sites (Neil v Areeba, Inc., 2d Dept 2026)
Labor Law 240(1), often known as the Scaffold Law, protects workers engaged in certain kinds of work on a building or structure, but not routine maintenance, while Labor Law 200’s duty to keep a workplace safe is not limited to construction work. Here, the Second Department held that a porter struck by loose sheets of plywood could not add a Labor Law 240(1) claim to his case, but should have been allowed to add a Labor Law 200 claim.
-
Rear-End Crash: Passengers Win on Fault Before Depositions Despite the Truck Driver’s Later Affidavit (Escobar v Sanchez, 2d Dept 2026)
When a vehicle that is stopped or slowing is hit from behind, the rear driver is presumed negligent and must give a non-negligent explanation for the crash. Here, the Second Department affirmed summary judgment on fault for two passengers in a car struck in the rear by a tractor-trailer, holding that the truck driver’s affidavit, which contradicted his statements recorded in the police accident report, raised only a “feigned issue of fact,” and that the motions were not premature.
-
Trip on a Fire Hydrant Base: Claim Against the Building Owner Dismissed Because the City Was Responsible for the Hydrant (Fung v Exxon Mobil Oil Corp., 2d Dept 2026)
In New York City, the owner of the building or lot that a sidewalk runs in front of (the “abutting” owner) must keep that sidewalk reasonably safe, but it may not be responsible for a fire hydrant on the sidewalk that it does not own, control, or maintain. Here, the Second Department affirmed the dismissal of a pedestrian’s claim against the abutting owner after his foot caught on a fire hydrant base, because the owner showed that the City was responsible for maintaining the hydrant.
-
Dram Shop Act: A Widow May Sue a Restaurant for Her Own Loss of Support, but Her Husband’s Estate May Not (Vera v BH Broadway Owner LLC, 1st Dept 2026)
New York’s Dram Shop Act can let a spouse who loses financial support when a drinker is hurt or killed sue the business that unlawfully served the drinker, but it gives no claim to the drinker or his estate. Here, the First Department let a widow’s own loss-of-support claim go forward against a restaurant that, she alleges, kept serving her visibly intoxicated husband before he fell down its stairs, but held that the claim fails insofar as it was brought on behalf of anyone else, including his estate.
-
Fall Through Open Floor Doors at a Bar: The Landlord That Leased Out the Space Stays in the Case (Cutter v Bayard’s Ale House, 1st Dept 2026)
A landlord that has handed over a property to a tenant is generally not responsible for its condition, but it may be held liable if it kept a right to reenter to make repairs and a specific building safety law was violated. Here, the First Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment to the landlord of a Greenwich Village bar where a patron fell down basement stairs, because the landlord did not address the statutes and codes the patron cited.
-
Hurt Catching a Falling Beam: Labor Law 240(1) Covers a Worker Who Neither Fell Nor Was Struck (Mitchell v Pullman SST, 1st Dept 2026)
Labor Law 240(1), often known as “the Scaffold Law,” may protect a construction worker who is hurt trying to keep a heavy load from falling, even if he never fell and nothing struck him. Here, the First Department affirmed partial summary judgment on liability for a foreman who hurt his back catching a 230-pound beam that slipped from a coworker’s hand, and held that being the foreman did not make him the sole proximate cause of the accident.
-
Ladder Struck by Falling Plywood: Worker Wins on Labor Law 240(1), Whether He Fell From the Second Step or the Sixth (De Souza v 4720 Third Ave LLC, 1st Dept 2026)
A worker who falls from an unsecured ladder that suddenly moves may win on liability under Labor Law 240(1), even if the fall is from only a few feet. Here, the First Department modified the trial court’s order to grant partial summary judgment on liability to a worker whose ladder was struck by a falling piece of plywood he was removing from a ceiling, holding that it did not matter whether he was on the sixth step or the second.
-
Ceiling Collapse After Repeated Leak Complaints: Injured Man Wins Summary Judgment on Liability (Wims v River Park Bronx Apts., 1st Dept 2026)
When the people responsible for a building know about a dangerous condition and do not fix it, an injured person may be able to win on fault without a trial. Here, the First Department affirmed summary judgment on liability for a man hurt when part of a ceiling fell, because the defendants had actual notice of a leak and it appeared they had simply plastered and painted over the ceiling two weeks before the accident.
-
When Is an Employer Responsible for an Employee’s Alleged Assaults? Divided Court Dismisses Claim Against The Cosby Show’s Producer (M.P. v Cosby, 1st Dept 2026)
An employer may be held responsible for negligently keeping or supervising an employee only if the harm is connected to the job, for example through the employer’s premises, property, or resources. Here, a divided First Department dismissed a claim against the company that produced The Cosby Show, holding that the plaintiff’s alleged visit to the show’s set, at Cosby’s invitation, was not a sufficient connection to the assaults she alleged.
-
Ambulance Allegedly Sent Without Oxygen: Wrongful Death Claim Against NYC Fails for Lack of a Special Duty (Davis v City of New York, 2d Dept 2026)
When a city sends an ambulance in response to a 911 call, it is performing a governmental function, and it can be held liable only if it owed the injured person a “special duty.” Here, the Second Department held that the City’s motion to dismiss a wrongful death complaint should have been granted because no such duty was alleged, even though a discovery sanction barred the City from offering evidence on liability.
-
Bus Video Defeats a Passenger’s Claim Against NYC Transit Despite the Other Driver’s Sworn Account (Hyejun Cho v NYCTA, 2d Dept 2026)
When clear video shows how a crash happened, a court may decide fault without a trial, even if a driver swears to a different version. Here, the Second Department affirmed the dismissal of a car passenger’s claims against the New York City Transit Authority and its bus driver, because the bus video conclusively established that the driver of the car she was riding in was the sole proximate cause of the crash.
-
Late Motion Could Not Defeat a Worker’s Labor Law 240(1) Claim, but His Late Industrial Code Amendment Failed Too (Cambero-Minaya v 211 Schermerhorn Dev., LLC, 2d Dept 2026)
After the note of issue is filed, deadlines bind both sides: a late summary judgment motion without good cause must be denied without considering the merits, and a late change to the bill of particulars ordinarily needs special and extraordinary circumstances. Here, the Second Department reinstated a worker’s Labor Law 240(1) and related claims because the owner and general contractor moved too late, but left his Labor Law 241(6) claim dismissed because he sought to add Industrial Code sections about nine months after the note of issue.
-
Late Notice of Claim Denied: Another Police Department’s Accident Report Did Not Give the Village Notice (Matter of Defonce v Village of Port Chester, 2d Dept 2026)
When a Notice of Claim deadline is missed, a court considers whether the public body learned the essential facts in time, whether there is a reasonable excuse, and whether the delay hurt its defense. Here, the Second Department affirmed the denial of an injured police officer’s request to serve a late Notice of Claim, holding that an accident report prepared by a different police department did not give the Village of Port Chester actual knowledge of his claim.
-
Car Crash Claims Against Two Defendants Dismissed Where the Treating Doctor First Saw the Patient Three Months Later (Gomez v Uber Tech., Inc., 1st Dept 2026)
In a New York car accident case, an injured person who claims a “serious injury” needs admissible medical proof linking the injuries to the accident, and that proof must answer any defense claim that the injuries are old, degenerative conditions. Here, the First Department affirmed the dismissal of the claims against two of the defendants because the early treatment records were unsworn and uncertified, and the treating doctor first examined the plaintiff three months after the collision, so he had not seen the injuries when they were new.
-
E-Bike Rider’s Claim Against NYC Transit: An Early Summary Judgment Motion Was Not Premature, but Unclear Video Was Not Enough (Komlan v Belisle, 1st Dept 2026)
The fact that depositions have not occurred in a motor vehicle accident case does not necessarily preclude the court from granting summary judgment, but the proof must still show the defendants’ negligence clearly. Here, the First Department held that an e-bike rider’s motion against the New York City Transit Authority was not premature, but because the surveillance video did not clearly depict the accident, it affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion.
-
Emailing a Notice of Claim to NYC Transit Is Not Valid Service (Kopitova v NYCTA, 2d Dept 2026)
Unless email is an authorized method of service for a Notice of Claim, claimants must ensure that papers are served in a manner that the law allows. Here, the Second Department upheld the dismissal of an injured woman’s case, ruling that even though an NYCTA lawyer received the emailed Claim, NYCTA’s prompt rejection required the Claimant to serve by authorized means.
-
Late Notice of Claim Allowed Against NYC Transit Because a Passenger’s Timely Notice Covered the Same Crash (Matter of Tkebuchava v NYCTA, 2d Dept 2026)
A missed 90-day deadline does not always end a case. Here, the driver of a car hit by a New York City Transit Authority bus missed the deadline, but a passenger on the bus had served her own timely Notice of Claim, which gave the authority actual knowledge of the essential facts, and the authority made no showing that the delay hurt its defense.
-
Slip-and-Fall Video Overwritten After a Preservation Letter: Adverse Inference Charge Ordered (Fernandez v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2d Dept 2026)
Where there is a question of fact as to the time a preservation letter is received and the time when the video is destroyed, the jury is to determine whether “spoliation of evidence” occurred. Here, in a slip-and-fall case against an airline, the Second Department held that “[t]he appropriate sanction” for any spoliation “would be an adverse inference charge” against the airline.
-
An Affirmation Without CPLR 2106’s Perjury Language Is Not Evidence in Admissible Form (Interasian v Park, 1st Dept 2026)
Every affirmation must explicitly state that it is made “under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment” as CPLR 2106 requires. Here, the First Department reversed a $9.2 million judgment, in part because all of the plaintiff’s evidence came in through an attorney affirmation that failed to substantially conform to that language.
No decisions match that search.
Legal Help When You Need It
Fill out the form to request a consultation and we will be in touch as soon as possible.
(212) 433-4500Toll-free 1-800-321-NYLAW (1-800-321-6952)
- Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
- We speak English, Spanish and Portuguese.
- Main office
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1808
New York, NY 10123 - Downtown office
30 Wall Street, Suite 804
New York, NY 10005
By appointment only