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 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.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, Second Department
- Decided
- October 7, 2026
- Case
- Hyejun Cho v New York City Tr. Auth.
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 05774
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The plaintiff alleged that she was injured when a car in which she was a passenger, driven by the defendant Ou Wu, was struck by a bus owned by the New York City Transit Authority and operated by the defendant Jose Castro. The Transit Authority and Castro moved to dismiss the claims against them. In opposition, the plaintiff submitted a sworn affirmation from Wu. He stated that he signaled, looked, and began his left turn when it was safe, and that halfway through the turn the bus “quickly, suddenly, and without warning pulled away from a bus stop” and hit the rear passenger side of his car. The Supreme Court, Kings County, treated the motion as one for summary judgment and granted it. The plaintiff appealed.
The holding
The Second Department affirmed. It found that the bus video showed, prima facie, that the bus had the right-of-way, that Wu violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 when he failed to yield and made a left turn into the path of the bus, and that the bus driver did not have enough time to react. The court held: “This conflicting evidence, without more, would have presented a triable issue of fact as to how the accident occurred, but for the NYCTA defendants’ submission of the bus surveillance video recording, which conclusively established that Wu was the sole proximate cause of the accident” (2026 NY Slip Op 05774, *2).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the court’s earlier decision in Pappas v New York City Tr. Auth. (208 AD3d 890).
What it means
- A passenger may have claims against more than one driver, but each claim depends on proof against that driver.
- As the court restated the rule, “a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision.”
- The court said the conflicting accounts, without more, would have raised a question of fact for trial. The video made the difference.
- The decision addresses only the claims against the Transit Authority and its bus driver. It does not decide the claims against the driver of the car.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
We note that the plaintiff was a passenger, and nothing in the decision suggests she did anything to cause this crash. Her claim against the bus still failed, because the video showed that the driver of the car she was riding in turned into the bus’s path. On a summary judgment motion, a court ordinarily does not decide who is telling the truth; it views the evidence in the light most favorable to the side opposing the motion. But it does not have to accept a sworn account that clear video contradicts. The court said as much here: the conflicting accounts would have raised a question of fact, but for the video. We do not suggest that anyone was untruthful; rather, here the video showed the event without the failures of human memory or perception. Compare our entry on Komlan v Belisle, decided by the First Department one day earlier. Both cases involved a New York City Transit Authority bus and video of the crash. In Komlan, the video did not clearly depict the accident, so the e-bike rider could not win on fault before trial; here, the video conclusively established that the car’s driver was the sole proximate cause, and the claims against the Transit Authority and its bus driver ended without a trial. Video cuts both ways. We believe two lessons follow. 1. Bus and surveillance video should be requested and preserved early (see our entry on Fernandez v Port Authority). 2. In a passenger case, the role of every driver should be examined from the start, including the driver of the car the passenger was in. A clear video can speak louder than any witness.
Topics
Court: Second Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(a); CPLR 3211(a). Result: affirmed.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided October 7, 2026. Posted October 8, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.