This page summarizes and comments on a published court decision. 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 this page says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in this case.
Bottom line
A driver who blames a rear-end crash on brake failure must offer evidence that the problem was unexpected and that reasonable care had been used to keep the brakes in good working order. Here, the Second Department granted an Access-A-Ride passenger summary judgment on liability against the box truck that started a chain collision, because the defense’s own evidence indicated that the truck’s brakes were tested after the crash and were working properly, but it left the seatbelt defense for trial and kept her claims against the transit defendants dismissed.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, Second Department
- Decided
- November 4, 2026
- Case
- Al-Hamid v New York City Tr. Auth.
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 06403
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The plaintiff was a passenger in an Access-A-Ride vehicle, “seated in a regular, individual seat equipped with a seatbelt” (2026 NY Slip Op 06403, *2), when a five-vehicle chain collision occurred on the Verrazano Bridge. A box truck owned by Starway International Group, LLC, and driven by Ying Tan struck a stopped vehicle, which was allegedly pushed into a third vehicle, which then struck the Access-A-Ride vehicle. She sued the truck’s owner and driver, and also the Access-A-Ride driver and the transit agencies (“the Transit defendants”), alleging that the Transit defendants failed to properly secure her. She moved for summary judgment on liability against the truck’s owner and driver and to dismiss the defenses alleging comparative fault and failure to wear a seatbelt; the Transit defendants cross-moved to dismiss. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied her motion and granted the cross-motion. She appealed, and the truck’s owner and driver cross-appealed.
The holding
The Second Department modified the order to grant her summary judgment on liability against the truck’s owner and driver and to dismiss the comparative fault defenses, and otherwise affirmed. A rear driver who blames brake failure shows a non-negligent explanation by presenting “evidence that the brake problem was unanticipated, and that reasonable care had been exercised to keep the brakes in good working order” (id., quoting Schuster v Amboy Bus Co.). Here, “Tan’s conclusory assertion of brake failure was contradicted by the Starway defendants’ own evidence that indicated that the brakes on the Starway vehicle were tested after the accident and were working properly” (id.). The comparative fault defenses fell because “she was an innocent passenger who did not engage in any culpable conduct that contributed to the happening of the accident” (id.). But the seatbelt defenses remain, because her papers “failed to eliminate triable issues of fact relevant to that defense” (id.). The court also rejected the challenges to the dismissal of the claims against the Transit defendants, citing, among other authorities, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c(8) (id.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the court’s earlier decisions in Schuster v Amboy Bus Co. (267 AD2d 448 [2d Dept 1999]) and Madrigal v Paragon Motors of Woodside, Inc. (236 AD3d 885 [2d Dept 2025]).
What it means
- In a chain collision, the driver who started it by hitting a stopped vehicle may be responsible to a passenger several vehicles ahead.
- A claim of brake failure is not enough on its own. Here, the defense’s own evidence of a post-crash brake test pointed the other way.
- A passenger who did nothing to cause the crash may have the defenses blaming her for it dismissed before trial.
- A seatbelt defense is treated separately. Here, the court left it for trial, because her papers did not eliminate the questions of fact about it.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
Our post on drivers who blame a medical emergency or brake failure explains that the brake-failure defense takes more than the driver’s word. This decision shows it in practice: the defense’s own evidence of a brake test after the crash undercut the driver’s claim. It also fits our entry on Williams v Dia (First Department, October 22, 2026), in which a passenger who could not have caused the crash won on fault before trial. As for the seatbelt, in general, under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c(8), not wearing one is not admissible on liability, but it may be raised to reduce damages if the defense was pleaded. Two lessons. 1. Wear your seatbelt every time, in a van, a car service, or a friend’s car, front seat or rear; it is the safe thing to do, and it may matter in later litigation if an accident occurs. If you are hurt, get legal advice promptly. 2. For lawyers, when the other driver claims brake failure, ask early for the post-crash inspection and the maintenance records. A brake test can say more than a driver’s affidavit.
Topics
Court: Second Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c(8). Result: modified.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided November 4, 2026. Posted November 11, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.