A recent decision from the Appellate Division, Second Department, offers an important reminder for anyone injured in a rear-end collision in New York: simply claiming the lead vehicle “stopped suddenly” is not enough for the rear driver to avoid liability.

In Brindisi v. ARJ Transp., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 02958 (decided on May 13, 2026), the plaintiff’s vehicle was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle while the plaintiff was stopped. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, arguing that the rear-end collision established the defendant driver’s negligence as a matter of law. The Supreme Court in Nassau County denied that motion, and the plaintiff appealed the decision.

On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment in the plaintiff’s favor.  New York law has long held that a driver approaching another vehicle from behind must maintain a safe distance and speed to avoid a collision. As a result, a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a presumption of negligence against the rear driver.  To overcome that presumption, the rear driver must offer a non-negligent explanation for the crash.

Importantly, the court noted that a plaintiff no longer needs to prove they were entirely free from fault to win summary judgment on liability. This reflects the New York Court of Appeals’ 2018 decision in Rodriguez v. City of New York, which changed how comparative fault is treated in these motions.

In opposing the motion, the defendant driver claimed that the plaintiff stopped abruptly for no apparent reason and without any vehicle ahead of him slowing down. The court found this explanation legally insufficient. A bare assertion that the lead vehicle stopped suddenly, without more, does not raise a triable issue of fact as to the rear driver’s negligence. At most, this type of claim can support an argument about the plaintiff’s comparative fault, which affects the amount of damages, not whether the defendant is liable in the first place.

This decision reinforces a consistent theme in New York case law: rear-end drivers bear a heavy burden when trying to escape liability. Excuses such as sudden braking, without evidence of some other cause, will generally not defeat a properly supported summary judgment motion.

Giulia R. Marino, Esq.