In Bonilla v. New York City Tr. Auth., 2026 NY Slip Op 04922 (Decided August 12, 2026), New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a lower court order that had granted a plaintiff summary judgment on liability in a personal injury action against the New York City Transit Authority and a bus operator, Ramon Rodriguez.  The decision is a useful reminder that even a rear-end collision involving a stopped vehicle does not guarantee a liability judgment in the injured party’s favor.

The plaintiff alleged that a New York City bus operated by Rodriguez struck the rear and side of his parked vehicle.  The defendants answered with several defenses, including comparative negligence. The plaintiff then moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability and to dismiss the comparative negligence defense. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted both requests, and the defendants appealed.

A plaintiff seeking summary judgment on liability in a negligence action must establish that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the breach was a proximate cause of the injuries. In the rear-end collision context, New York courts have long held that a collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the rear vehicle. That operator must then come forward with a non-negligent explanation for the collision.

The court emphasized, however, that not every rear-end collision is the exclusive fault of the rearmost driver. An accident may have more than one proximate cause, and the question is ordinarily left to the trier of fact unless only one conclusion can be drawn from the established facts. Summary judgment is inappropriate where facts are disputed, where conflicting inferences may be drawn, or where credibility is at issue.  The court also reiterated that a plaintiff need not establish freedom from comparative negligence to obtain summary judgment on liability. A plaintiff who moves to dismiss a defendant’s comparative negligence defense, however, invites the court to decide that issue as part of the motion.

The Appellate Division agreed that the plaintiff satisfied his initial burden by showing that his vehicle was stopped when it was struck from behind by the bus. The burden then shifted to the defendants, who responded with evidence that included video footage from the bus’s cameras, photographs of the plaintiff’s vehicle, and an affidavit from the bus operator. According to the court, this evidence conflicted as to how the accident occurred and where the vehicles made contact.

Because that conflicting evidence raised a triable issue of fact, the Supreme Court should not have resolved liability or the comparative negligence defense as a matter of law. The Appellate Division reversed and denied both branches of the plaintiff’s motion.

Giulia R. Marino, Esq.