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 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.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, Second Department
- Decided
- October 21, 2026
- Case
- Pruessen v Richard Capobianco, Inc.
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 06155
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
On August 7, 2020, a vehicle owned by Richard Capobianco, Inc., and driven by Andrew Capobianco struck the plaintiff’s vehicle in the intersection of First Street and Fourth Avenue in Huntington, where First Street has a stop sign and Fourth Avenue has no traffic control device. At the jury trial on fault, the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, excluded three photographs of the two vehicles after the accident. The plaintiff presented Capobianco’s deposition testimony that he turned onto Fourth Avenue about 100 yards from the intersection and first saw her vehicle in the middle of it “a split second” before striking it. She testified that she stopped at the corner, saw no vehicles coming, and proceeded, and that the front of her vehicle had fully crossed the intersection when the defendants’ vehicle struck its rear passenger’s side. At the close of her case, the court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law and dismissed the complaint. She appealed.
The holding
The Second Department reversed, reinstated the complaint, and sent the case back for a new trial. It explained that a driver with the right of way “who has only seconds to react to a vehicle that has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision,” but “still has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle already in the intersection” (2026 NY Slip Op 06155, *1). Here, “there is a rational process by which the jury could have found that even if Capobianco had the right-of-way, the plaintiff’s vehicle was already in the intersection, and that Capobianco failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the collision” (id.). Excluding the photographs was also an improvident exercise of discretion: “Even where a trial is bifurcated, some evidence of damages may nevertheless be admitted, in the trial court’s discretion, to establish liability at the liability phase of the trial, so long as such evidence is probative of liability and accompanied by an appropriate limiting instruction” (id.). The photographs, “which showed significant damage to the rear portion of the plaintiff’s vehicle and the front portion of the defendants’ vehicle,” were relevant to whether either driver failed to see what should have been seen (id.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the court’s earlier decisions in Pei Ru Guo v Efkarpidis (185 AD3d 949) and Patino v County of Nassau (124 AD3d 738).
What it means
- A stop sign on the other street does not end the analysis. Under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a), as the court described it, the driver at the stop sign must yield. But the driver with the right of way must still use reasonable care toward a vehicle already in the intersection.
- A judge may take a case from the jury before it deliberates only if there is no rational way the jury could find for the other side, viewing the evidence in that side’s favor.
- Even at a trial limited to fault, photographs of vehicle damage may be admitted, with a limiting instruction, when they help show how the crash happened.
- The new trial will decide fault. The decision does not decide who was at fault or damages.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
This was the right result. The defendant driver testified that he turned onto the street about 100 yards before the intersection, yet first saw her car only “a split second” before the impact. Whether he should have seen it sooner is a question for the jury. Our entry on Sanchez-Rodriguez v Bruce (First Department, October 20) makes a related point: a driver facing a green light must still yield to other traffic lawfully within the intersection. The photographs mattered for the same reason: the dents can tell part of the story the drivers do not agree on, such as where each car was when they met. Two lessons follow. 1. After a crash, if it is safe, photograph both vehicles, including exactly where each was damaged, before any repairs, and keep the photos (see our post on preserving evidence early). 2. For lawyers, at a trial limited to fault, consider asking the court to admit damage photographs that bear on how the crash happened, with a limiting instruction. Sometimes the pictures show the jury what the testimony cannot.
Topics
Court: Second Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a); CPLR 4401. Result: reversed.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided October 21, 2026. Posted October 21, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.