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
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.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, Second Department
- Decided
- October 21, 2026
- Case
- Ruiz v Town of Southampton
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 06158
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
In July 2023, the plaintiff’s vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by the Town of Southampton and driven by Ryan Corwin. The plaintiff sued both. In September 2024, he moved for summary judgment on fault and to dismiss the defenses alleging his own culpable conduct, comparative negligence, failure to wear a seatbelt, and assumption of the risk. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied those parts of the motion, and he appealed.
The holding
The Second Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment on fault and dismissed the rest of the appeal. The plaintiff made his initial showing under the rear-end rule, but “Corwin averred in his affidavit that the plaintiff was at fault for the happening of the accident by making a sudden stop for no apparent reason” (2026 NY Slip Op 06158, *2), and “[i]n light of the parties’ conflicting versions of the happening of the accident, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact” (id.). The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the motion was premature, because they did not show that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the essential facts were exclusively within the plaintiff’s knowledge (id.). It did not decide whether the defenses should be dismissed, because the record on appeal “does not include the defendants’ answer” (id.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the court’s earlier decisions in Correa v Cannon (240 AD3d 663) and Gimenez v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc. (234 AD3d 943).
What it means
- In a rear-end crash, the driver in back is presumed negligent, and the driver in front can often ask the court to decide fault early.
- The rear driver can still raise a question of fact with a sworn non-negligent explanation. Here, the rear driver swore that the plaintiff stopped suddenly for no apparent reason, and the two drivers’ accounts conflicted.
- The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the motion came too early, but the plaintiff still lost it because the defendants’ affidavit created a factual dispute.
- The decision does not decide who was at fault or damages, and it did not decide whether the defenses blaming the plaintiff should be dismissed.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
This decision is the other side of our entry on Escobar v Sanchez (Second Department, October 14). There, passengers won on fault before depositions because the truck driver’s later affidavit contradicted what he said right after the crash, as recorded in the police report. Here, the decision describes no earlier statement that contradicted the rear driver’s affidavit. The Second Department has also said that a claim that the car ahead came to a sudden stop, “standing alone,” is not enough (Genao v Cassetta, 2023 NY Slip Op 01078, *1), while listing “a sudden, unexplained stop of the vehicle ahead” among possible non-negligent explanations (Bandele v Rasier-NY, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 04483, *2). Ruiz cites two earlier decisions that show where that line falls. In Correa v Cannon, the driver in front swore that she was “stopped for a traffic condition ahead” (2025 NY Slip Op 04157, *1), but the other driver’s affidavit that she made “a sudden stop for no apparent reason in the middle of their lane of traffic on the highway” (id. at *2) raised questions of fact, and summary judgment for the plaintiffs was reversed. In Gimenez v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc., the court restated that “[t]he frontmost driver also has the duty not to stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision” (2025 NY Slip Op 00434, *1). So even a driver who had a good reason to stop may face a trial if the other driver swears there was none. We see a real difference between a driver who swears the car ahead stopped “for no apparent reason,” which, while perhaps self-serving, is at least an affirmative account that there was no reason to stop, and a driver who simply does not know why the car ahead stopped, which offers no account at all. The first, as these decisions show, can be enough for a trial; the second is closer to a sudden stop “standing alone,” which is not enough. That is why independent evidence, such as dashcam video, witnesses, and the police report, can matter so much in rear-end cases (see our post on the “sudden stop” defense). Two lessons follow. 1. If your car is hit from behind, note why you stopped (a light, traffic, or a pedestrian, for example), look for anyone who saw it or any camera that recorded it, and get legal advice promptly. 2. For lawyers, when the other driver claims a sudden stop, read the affidavit closely: does it swear there was no reason for the stop, or does it say only that the driver does not know why the car ahead stopped? Either way, have your client’s reason for stopping ready, backed by independent proof if you can. Why a car stopped can matter as much as the fact that it was hit.
Topics
Court: Second Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a); CPLR 3212(f); CPLR 5526. Result: affirmed.
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.