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
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.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, Second Department
- Decided
- October 14, 2026
- Case
- Escobar v Sanchez
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 05936
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
Two passengers, Omar Sanchez Escobar and Silvia R. Rodriguez, alleged that in July 2022, the car they were riding in, driven by Marysol Vargas Caicedo, was struck in the rear by a tractor-trailer owned and operated by Erlin Jose Sanchez. They sued both drivers. The car’s driver moved to dismiss the cross-claims against her, stating in her affirmation that she was driving slowly in heavy traffic and that her brake lights were working. Each passenger moved for summary judgment on fault against the truck driver, and Escobar also moved to dismiss the truck driver’s defenses of culpable conduct, emergency, and failure to use seatbelts. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the motions, and the truck driver appealed.
The holding
The Second Department affirmed. It restated that “[a] rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle” (2026 NY Slip Op 05936, *2, quoting Abramov v Martinez). The passengers met that burden with evidence that their car “was slowing down due to heavy traffic when it was struck in the rear” (id.). The truck driver’s affidavit “contradicted his statements immediately following the accident, as reflected in a police accident report, and must be viewed as a belated attempt to avoid the consequences of his earlier admission by raising a feigned issue of fact” (id.). And the motions were not premature: “Sanchez had personal knowledge of the relevant facts, and his mere hope or speculation that evidence might be uncovered was insufficient to deny the motions and cross-motion” (id.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the Court of Appeals’ decision in Tutrani v County of Suffolk (10 NY3d 906) and the court’s earlier decision in Yonghong Xia v Zhao Xian Zeng (219 AD3d 914).
What it means
- The court also upheld the dismissal of the truck driver’s defenses claiming that Escobar was at fault, that the truck driver faced an emergency, and that Escobar failed to wear a seatbelt. As the court restated the rule, the emergency doctrine does not apply where the party invoking it “created or contributed to the emergency.”
- What a driver says right after a crash can matter. A later affidavit that contradicts an earlier admission may be treated as a feigned issue, not a real one.
- A motion on fault made before depositions is not automatically premature. The truck driver already knew what happened, so hoping that discovery would turn up something was not enough.
- The decision does not decide damages.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
We note that this decision follows the same idea the First Department applied to an e-bike rider in our entry on Komlan v Belisle: when how a crash happened is within the other side’s own knowledge, an injured person does not always have to wait for depositions to ask the court to decide fault. The difference was the proof. In Komlan, the video did not clearly show the crash. Here, the car’s driver stated that she was slowing in heavy traffic with working brake lights, and the truck driver’s statements right after the crash, as recorded in the police report, were treated as his “earlier admission,” which his later affidavit could not undo. In our experience, statements made at the scene can carry great weight. Two lessons follow. 1. After a crash, get the police report number and the names of everyone involved, and get legal advice promptly. 2. For lawyers, a motion on fault in a rear-end case can be made early, and it should also ask the court to dismiss the defenses that blame the injured passenger. Sometimes the first account is the one that matters.
Topics
Court: Second Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a); CPLR 3212(f). Result: affirmed.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided October 14, 2026. Posted October 14, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.