- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case Name
- Gantt v. City of New York
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03266
- Decision Date
- May 26, 2026
- Docket No.
- Index No. 29299/17 et al., Appeal No. 6729, Case No. 2025-02973
Background
This case arose from a collision between a city bus and a commercial truck that was in the process of parallel parking on a Bronx street. Multiple passengers on the bus filed personal injury lawsuits, which were consolidated. The bus defendants included the Metropolitan Transit Authority, New York City Transit Authority, Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, MTA Bus Company, and the bus driver. The truck defendants included Noel A. Torres (the truck driver), DMP Leasing Corp., and Colgate Scaffolding.
Evidence showed that the truck driver, Torres, was making a second attempt at parallel parking the truck when the bus driver attempted to pass the truck by crossing a double yellow line. Dashcam footage from the bus captured the collision. Torres testified that he was moving the truck forward when the accident happened. The bus driver admitted she could have stopped the bus behind the truck rather than attempting to pass it.
Both sets of defendants moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court (Barbato, J.) denied the bus defendants’ motions and granted the truck defendants’ motions, dismissing all claims against the truck defendants. The bus defendants appealed the denial of their motions, and various parties challenged the grant of summary judgment to the truck defendants.
Holding
The First Department unanimously modified the order. The court denied the truck defendants’ motions for summary judgment, finding that issues of fact existed as to whether the truck defendants were also negligent. The record did not establish that the truck was stationary when the bus began passing it; Torres testified he was moving the truck forward, and a jury viewing the dashcam footage could reach the same conclusion.
The court also affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the bus defendants. While the bus defendants established that the truck violated Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1128(a) by not being positioned entirely within a single lane, issues of fact existed as to the bus defendants’ own negligence. The bus driver admitted she could have stopped behind the truck, so a jury could infer that her decision to cross the double yellow lines in violation of VTL Section 1126(a) contributed to the accident.
The matter was remanded to determine whether each plaintiff established a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law Section 5102(d).
Key Takeaways
- A party’s admitted violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law does not automatically entitle the other party to summary judgment; comparative fault issues may preclude summary disposition.
- When both parties commit VTL violations—here, crossing a double yellow line (VTL 1126[a]) and failing to stay within a lane (VTL 1128[a])—questions of comparative negligence must be resolved by a jury.
- Dashcam footage and party testimony that conflict create triable issues of fact unsuitable for summary resolution.
- The serious injury threshold under Insurance Law Section 5102(d) remains a separate question that must be addressed after liability issues.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the high bar for summary judgment in multi-party motor vehicle accident cases where both sides committed traffic violations. Even when one party’s violation is clear, the opposing party’s own admitted wrongdoing can defeat summary judgment by creating questions of comparative fault. The case also highlights the evidentiary value of dashcam footage, which can create factual disputes that must be resolved at trial. Practitioners handling motor vehicle litigation in New York should be mindful that establishing the opposing party’s traffic violation alone is typically insufficient for summary judgment when evidence of the movant’s own negligence exists in the record.