- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- Torres v. Occhino
- Date
- June 2, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03412
Background
Plaintiff Kenya Torres was driving past a parking lot exit with the right-of-way when defendant Anthony L. Occhino made a left turn from the parking lot exit into the flow of traffic and struck the rear driver’s side door of Torres’s vehicle. Torres moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of defendants’ affirmative defense of comparative negligence. Torres admitted in her deposition that she did not look left and did not see Occhino’s vehicle before it struck hers. Occhino testified that Torres’s vehicle was “weaving,” though this observation was flatly contradicted by his own earlier deposition statements that he never saw Torres’s vehicle until just before the impact. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied Torres’s motion, and she appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed and granted the motion, dismissing the comparative negligence defense. The Court found that the accident could only have been caused by Occhino’s ill-timed or sudden turn from the parking lot exit into the flow of traffic. Torres’s failure to look left before the impact did not create an issue of fact regarding comparative negligence because, as a driver proceeding with the right-of-way, she had no obligation to anticipate that Occhino would make an improper left turn into her path. The Court further found that Occhino’s testimony that Torres’s vehicle was “weaving” was plainly incredible on its face because it was flatly contradicted by his own multiple prior statements that he never saw Torres’s vehicle until just before impact. This was identified as one of the rare instances in which credibility can properly be determined as a matter of law on summary judgment.
Takeaways
A driver proceeding with the right-of-way has no duty to anticipate that another driver will make an improper turn from a parking lot exit into her path. The failure to look in the direction from which the offending vehicle came does not constitute comparative negligence when the collision was caused by the other driver’s unexpected and ill-timed entry into traffic. On summary judgment, testimony that is flatly contradicted by the same witness’s own prior statements may be disregarded as incredible as a matter of law, which is a rare but recognized exception to the general rule that credibility determinations are for the factfinder.
Why It Matters
This decision is notable for its holding that a witness’s credibility can be determined as a matter of law when the witness’s testimony is internally inconsistent. Practitioners should be aware that when a deponent offers testimony on one point that directly contradicts multiple prior statements in the same deposition, the contradictory testimony may be disregarded entirely on summary judgment. The case also reinforces the principle that drivers with the right-of-way are not charged with comparative negligence for failing to take evasive action against an unforeseeable hazard created by another driver’s violation of traffic rules.