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 asks to be let out of a case before trial must eliminate every real question about whether his own fault helped cause the crash, and a police report from an officer who did not see the crash may not do that. Here, the First Department reinstated an injured passenger’s claim against a left-turning driver and the vehicle’s owner, because the dashcam video from the car she was riding in showed the turning vehicle encroaching into the oncoming lane, and the evidence left open whether he should have yielded to a hazard he said he had seen.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, First Department
- Decided
- November 10, 2026
- Case
- Walsh v Singho
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 06568
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The crash happened in Manhattan at Avenue C and East 10th Street, a two-way street. A vehicle driven by Jared Singho and owned by Charter Communications LLC, doing business as Spectrum, was heading south on Avenue C and preparing to turn left onto East 10th Street. The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Sefkija Sabovic and owned by Ocean Drive Bros LLC, heading north on Avenue C. When a vehicle in front of Sabovic began to turn left onto East 10th Street, Sabovic went around it on the right and collided with Singho’s vehicle in the intersection. The dashboard camera in Sabovic’s vehicle recorded the crash. Before discovery was complete, Singho and Spectrum moved for summary judgment, and the Supreme Court, Bronx County, dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against them. The plaintiff appealed, as did Sabovic and Ocean Drive.
The holding
The First Department unanimously reversed, vacated the judgment, and denied the motion. It agreed that the motion was not premature, because no one identified information “exclusively in Singho’s or Spectrum’s possession” that would have raised an issue of fact (2026 NY Slip Op 06568, *1). But Singho and Spectrum “failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment” (id.). “The dashboard camera video shows that Singho’s vehicle was moving past the crosswalk and encroaching in the northbound lane as it came to a stop in the intersection” (id.). Singho said that Sabovic entered the bike lane to go around the car ahead, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128, and then swerved into him. “Yet the evidence does not establish why Singho failed to yield to this hazard that he said he had noticed” (id.). Sabovic’s affidavit, together with the video, raised questions “as to whether Singho failed to yield, and whether that failure to yield was a proximate cause of this accident” (id. at *2). Nor did the police report help: “The responding officer did not witness the accident, was not qualified as expert witness, and his report contained only hearsay” (id.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the court’s earlier decisions in Nevarez v S.R.M. Mgt. Corp. (58 AD3d 295 [1st Dept 2008]) and Roman v Cabrera (113 AD3d 541 [1st Dept 2014]).
What it means
- A passenger who did nothing to cause a crash may have claims against either driver, or both. Here, the passenger’s claim against the turning driver goes forward.
- Under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, a driver turning left “shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.” Here, the turning driver said he saw the other car coming around in the bike lane, and the evidence left open whether he should have yielded to it.
- A police report is not proof of who was at fault when the officer did not see the crash, is not qualified as an expert, and records only what others said.
- A motion made before discovery was complete was not premature here: both drivers had given affidavits, the crash was on video, and the other parties identified no information that only the moving side had. But the moving side still had to prove that its driver was not at fault.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
The officer arrived after the crash; the camera was there for it. In other words, the officer recorded others’ subjective descriptions; the camera recorded objective facts. We believe that is the heart of this decision. In Pemberton v Liberty Ashes (First Department, October 27, 2026), dashcam video showing that the cyclist ran a red light was central to the dismissal of his claim; here, video helped the injured person. The decision also fits our entry on Sanchez-Rodriguez v Bruce (First Department, October 20, 2026): a left turn does not settle fault for either driver; what matters is who had to yield, and when. Two lessons. 1. If you are hurt as a passenger, you do not have to work out which driver was at fault before you get help. Look for a dashcam in either car, and get legal advice promptly so that the video may be saved. 2. For lawyers, a motion that leans on the police report is vulnerable when the officer did not see the crash, and video can raise questions that neither driver’s affidavit answers. A dashcam does not take sides and can be the best proof about what occurred, without bias.
Topics
Court: First Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1128, 1141; CPLR 3212(f). Result: reversed.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided November 10, 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.