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 passenger who could not have caused a crash may win on liability before trial against a driver who was negligent under either version of the events, and a ruling that one driver was at fault does not by itself let the other driver out of the case. Here, the First Department affirmed summary judgment for a passenger against the driver who faced a stop sign, put the other driver back in the case, and held that her physiatrist’s opinion, based in part on MRIs taken after both crashes, raised a question of fact on causation.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, First Department
- Decided
- October 22, 2026
- Case
- Williams v Dia
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 06232
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The plaintiff was a passenger in one of the vehicles involved in a collision at an intersection where defendant Ibou Kane Dia faced a stop sign and defendant Jorge Gerena faced no traffic control device. She sued both drivers and Lyft Inc., which was not part of this appeal. The drivers moved for summary judgment dismissing her claims under the serious injury law, Insurance Law § 5102(d), and she cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the drivers’ motions on two serious injury categories, in effect granted her summary judgment on liability against Dia on the ground that she bore no liability for the collision, and dismissed the complaint against Gerena. Only Dia appealed.
The holding
The First Department unanimously modified the order to reinstate the complaint against Gerena, and otherwise affirmed. On causation, the defense radiologist’s opinion that her injuries were degenerative shifted the burden to her, and she met it. Her physiatrist’s opinion “was based not only on his recent examination of plaintiff, but also his review of her medical records in connection with both the collision underlying this appeal and a prior motor vehicle collision in 2006” (2026 NY Slip Op 06232, *2). He compared MRIs taken after both collisions and “observed new conditions that were not reported in the prior studies as well as worsening of conditions that were reported” (id.), and she had not been treated for the earlier collision since 2008. On liability, she “could not have been at fault under any version of the events underlying the collision” (id.), and “[u]nder either version of events, Dia was negligent as a matter of law” (id.): he either failed to stop at the stop sign or entered the intersection without yielding. But that finding “has no bearing on the extent to which Gerena may have been comparatively at fault for the happening of the collision — for example, by speeding” (id.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the Court of Appeals’ decision in Rodriguez v City of New York (31 NY3d 312).
What it means
- A passenger who could not have caused the crash may ask the court to rule, before trial, that she was not at fault, even when the drivers’ versions of the crash differ, if she could not have been at fault under any version.
- A finding that one driver was negligent as a matter of law does not decide whether the other driver shares the fault. Both drivers are now in the case.
- An earlier injury does not by itself end a claim. A doctor who compares earlier and later records and films, and explains what is new or worse, may raise a question for the jury on what this crash caused.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
The same court, the same day, affirmed the dismissal of another vehicle collision claim in Osei v Polanco-Puello (2026 NY Slip Op 06207), in part because the plaintiff’s radiologist, “the only one of his experts who examined the actual MRIs of his cervical and lumbar spine, offered no opinion on causation in either his affirmation or his reports.” Both cases began with a defense radiologist calling the injuries degenerative. The difference was the answer. We note, too, that the second driver is back in the case, on the appeal of the driver who faced the stop sign. One driver’s negligence as a matter of law did not decide whether the other shared the fault, and a jury may find that both did. Two lessons. 1. If you have been hurt before, tell your doctors about the earlier accident and keep those records; they may help show what this crash added. 2. For lawyers, when the defense says “degenerative,” have your expert compare the earlier and later studies, answer the defense findings directly, and give an opinion on causation. An old injury can be where the causation question starts, not where it ends.
Topics
Court: First Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Insurance Law § 5102(d); Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a). Result: modified.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided October 22, 2026. Posted October 26, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.