Bonilla v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Opinion

Bonilla v New York City Tr. Auth.

2026 NY Slip Op 04922

August 12, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Carlos David Ramirez Bonilla, respondent,

v

New York City Transit Authority, et al., appellants, et al., defendant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 12, 2026

2024-04870, (Index No. 714535/23)

Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.

William G. Ford

Carl J. Landicino

Susan Quirk, JJ.

Anna J. Ervolina (Armienti, DeBellis & Rhoden, LLP, New York, NY [Christopher Grimaldi and Vanessa M. Corchia], of counsel), for appellants.

Chernyy & Associates, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York, NY [Brian J. Isaac and Jack W. Lockwood II], of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Ramon Rodriguez appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Mojgan Cohanim Lancman, J.), entered March 22, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the issue of liability against those defendants and dismissing those defendants' affirmative defense of comparative negligence.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with costs, and those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Ramon Rodriguez and dismissing those defendants' affirmative defense of comparative negligence are denied.

The plaintiff driver commenced this action against the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Ramon Rodriguez (hereinafter together the defendants), and another, after the plaintiff alleged that a New York City bus operated by Rodriguez struck the rear and the side of the plaintiff's parked vehicle. The defendants answered the complaint asserting, inter alia, an affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence.

The plaintiff moved, among other things, for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants and dismissing the defendants' affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence. The defendants opposed the motion. In an order entered March 22, 2024, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted those branches of the motion. The defendants appeal.

"A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries" (Singh v Jervis, 222 AD3d 900, 900 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Tsyganash v Auto Mall Fleet Mgt., Inc., 163 AD3d 1033, 1033-1034). While "[a] rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come [*2]forward with evidence of a non-negligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence . . . 'not every rear-end collision is the exclusive fault of the rearmost driver'" (Conroy v New York City Tr. Auth., 167 AD3d 977, 978, quoting Gaeta v Carter, 6 AD3d 576, 576; see Yearwood v New York City Tr. Auth., 227 AD3d 843, 844).

"An accident can have more than one proximate cause, and although it is generally for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause, it may be decided as a matter of law where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts" (Qureshi v Gleason, 231 AD3d 878, 879 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Laborde v Creative Closet & Design, Inc., 240 AD3d 678, 678-679; Fox v Murgolo, 191 AD3d 765, 766). "[A] 'motion for summary judgment should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility'" (Lugo v Mercurio, 240 AD3d 769, 770, quoting Baab v HP, Inc., 211 AD3d 783, 783; see Boulos v Lerner-Harrington, 124 AD3d 709, 710; Allen v Echols, 88 AD3d 926, 926-927). "Even though a plaintiff is not required to establish his or her freedom from comparative negligence to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability, the issue of a plaintiff's comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where the plaintiff moves for summary judgment dismissing a defendant's affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence and culpable conduct on the part of the plaintiff" (Sapienza v Harrison, 191 AD3d 1028, 1029; see Singh v Jervis, 222 AD3d at 900-901; Garutti v Kim Co Refrig. Corp., 222 AD3d 728, 729).

Here, the plaintiff met his prima facie burden on the issue of liability by demonstrating that his vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear by the bus operated by Rodriguez (see Toledo v Pascal, 242 AD3d 1039; Sroor v Marziano-Fontana, 229 AD3d 581, 583; Yearwood v New York City Tr. Auth., 227 AD3d at 845). However, in opposition, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact by submitting, among other things, a video from the bus's cameras, photographs of the plaintiff's vehicle, and an affidavit of Rodriguez, which provided conflicting evidence as to how the accident occurred and the points of impact (see Yearwood v New York City Tr. Auth., 227 AD3d at 845; Garutti v Kim Co Refrig. Corp., 222 AD3d at 729).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants and dismissing the defendants' affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence.

GENOVESI, J.P., FORD, LANDICINO and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court