- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- Caraballo v. Century Star Fuel Corporation
- Date
- June 2, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03383
Background
Plaintiff Dany Caraballo commenced this personal injury action in Bronx County, alleging that he was injured when defendants’ truck struck the rear of his vehicle at an intersection. Caraballo testified that he was stopped at a red light in the left lane when the truck driven by defendant Donald Prophete hit the back of his car. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, relying on the well-established principle that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence. The defendants opposed, submitting the testimony of driver Prophete, who gave a materially different account of the collision. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the plaintiff’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the denial of summary judgment. The Court acknowledged that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of negligence based on his testimony that he was stopped at a red light when the truck struck his vehicle from behind. However, the defendants raised triable issues of fact through Prophete’s testimony, which described a significantly different version of events. Prophete testified that he was stopped at the red light in the left lane and that the collision occurred as both vehicles pulled away from the light, with the rear tires of his truck rubbing against the rear fender of the plaintiff’s vehicle. Importantly, the photographic evidence—showing damage only to the driver’s side rear panel of the plaintiff’s car—was more consistent with Prophete’s account than with the plaintiff’s claim of a direct rear-end strike while stationary. These conflicting accounts created a factual dispute appropriate only for resolution by a jury.
Takeaways
While a rear-end collision with a stationary vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence and shifts the burden to the defendant to provide a non-negligent explanation, the plaintiff’s entitlement to summary judgment can be defeated by evidence creating conflicting versions of how the collision occurred. Physical evidence, including photographs showing a damage pattern inconsistent with the plaintiff’s account, can significantly bolster a defendant’s opposition. Courts will not resolve competing versions of events on a summary judgment motion, particularly when the physical evidence supports the defendant’s alternative narrative.
Why It Matters
This case is instructive for personal injury practitioners handling motor vehicle collision cases. Even in the classic rear-end collision scenario, which generally favors the plaintiff on liability, summary judgment is not automatic. Defendants who can present a coherent alternative account of the accident—especially one supported by contemporaneous physical evidence such as photographs of the damage pattern—can successfully defeat summary judgment and preserve their right to a jury trial on liability. Plaintiffs’ attorneys should anticipate that photographic evidence may be used to challenge their clients’ testimony and should prepare to address any inconsistencies between the physical evidence and the claimed mechanism of impact.