Ingram v. Small

Opinion

Ingram v Small

2026 NY Slip Op 05012

August 19, 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.

Shamel Ingram, respondent,

v

Robert E. Small, et al., appellants.

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

Decided on August 19, 2026

2024-10683, (Index No. 500992/23)

Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.

Barry E. Warhit

Laurence L. Love

Susan Quirk, JJ.

Kennedys Law LLP, New York, NY (Tasnova Amanullah of counsel), for appellants.

Banilov & Associates, P.C. (The Altman Firm PLLC, Woodmere, NY [Michael T. Altman], of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Caroline Piela Cohen, J.), dated July 18, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when his vehicle made contact with the defendants' vehicle. In an order dated July 18, 2024, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants appeal.

"A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident" (Boulos v Lerner-Harrington, 124 AD3d 709; see W.C.V. v Wilson, 244 AD3d 1164, 1165). "'There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident and generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause'" (Leslie v Marinello, 243 AD3d 554, 555, quoting Mehta v Keaveney, 216 AD3d 635, 636; see Cox v Nunez, 23 AD3d 427).

Here, the defendants failed to establish that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The evidence provided by the defendants in support of their cross-motion, including an affidavit of the defendant driver and dashboard camera video footage, established that the plaintiff's vehicle was parked, partially in the crosswalk, on Norman Avenue, while the defendant driver made a right turn from Russell Street onto Norman Avenue. However, contrary to the defendants' contention, this evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant driver had already completed the right turn when the plaintiff's vehicle attempted to pull out of the parking spot and struck the defendants' vehicle (see Leslie v Marinello, 243 AD3d at 555). The affidavit of the defendant driver was insufficient, as it merely stated that, after completing the right turn, he heard and felt an impact on his vehicle, after which time he exited the vehicle and "realized" that the impact was the result of the plaintiff's vehicle striking the passenger side of the defendant driver's vehicle. Further, the dashboard camera video footage fails to corroborate the defendants' theory of [*2]the accident, as it does not show any movement of the plaintiff's vehicle or any indication that movement may occur, such as brake lights or a turn signal (see Cheese v Ferguson, 208 AD3d 1302, 1303).

The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

GENOVESI, J.P., WARHIT, LOVE and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court