- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- Robinson v. DeSouza
- Date
- June 2, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03408
Background
Plaintiff Lisa M. Robinson was a passenger in the rear seat of a taxi owned by defendant American United Transportation Inc. and operated by defendant John J. DeSouza when the taxi collided with a truck owned by the City of New York and operated by defendant John J. Hermanowski. Each driver claimed that the other caused the collision by improperly merging and striking the side of the other’s vehicle. Robinson moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability against all defendants, including the City defendants. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the motion in full. The City defendants appealed, and also sought leave to renew, which was denied.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously modified the order to grant summary judgment only to the extent of finding no culpable conduct by the plaintiff on the issue of liability, and vacated the finding of liability against the City defendants. The Court agreed that Robinson, as an innocent rear-seat passenger, bore no comparative fault under any version of how the collision occurred. However, the Court found that the conflicting accounts of the two drivers—each blaming the other for improperly merging—created triable issues of fact as to which driver was at fault. Because the City defendants’ liability depended on a determination of Hermanowski’s fault, and that question remained disputed, summary judgment against the City was inappropriate. The appeal from the renewal denial was dismissed as academic in light of the modification.
Takeaways
An innocent passenger in a motor vehicle collision is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of her own freedom from comparative negligence, regardless of which driver was at fault. However, the passenger’s entitlement to a finding of no culpable conduct does not automatically establish the liability of any particular defendant when the drivers present conflicting accounts of who caused the collision. Each driver’s liability must still be determined based on the factual evidence, and where two drivers blame each other for the accident, the question of which driver bears fault remains a triable issue for the jury.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the important distinction between a finding of no comparative fault on the part of the plaintiff and a finding of affirmative liability against particular defendants. Plaintiffs’ attorneys representing passengers in multi-vehicle collisions should seek summary judgment on the issue of their client’s freedom from fault, as this simplifies the trial by eliminating comparative negligence as an issue. However, they should recognize that summary judgment against individual defendants may not be available when the drivers present competing versions of the accident. Defense counsel should carefully review summary judgment orders against their clients to determine whether the motion court improperly resolved disputed factual questions about the mechanism of the collision.