- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Davis v. Rodriguez
- Docket
- 2024-09936
- Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Slip Op
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03290
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2026)
Background
Lincoln Davis commenced an action against Jose Rodriguez and other defendants to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when the electric bike he was riding collided with the defendants’ vehicle. The accident occurred as the defendants’ vehicle was attempting to make a right turn into the driveway of a Dunkin’ Donuts establishment. The defendants characterized the collision as a rear-end impact, with Davis striking the rear of their turning vehicle.
The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that Davis was negligent in striking their vehicle from behind. In support, they submitted transcripts of deposition testimony from both the plaintiff and the defendant driver. The Supreme Court, Kings County denied the motion, and the defendants appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment, with costs to the plaintiff. The court applied the established framework for analyzing rear-end collision cases, noting that in such accidents, the frontmost driver has a duty “not to stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision,” citing Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, 64 AD3d 53, and Gaeta v. Carter, 6 AD3d 576.
Critically, the court found that the deposition testimony submitted by the defendants presented divergent accounts of the facts surrounding the accident. Because the parties’ accounts conflicted regarding how the accident occurred, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendant driver was not at fault. Since the defendants did not meet their initial burden as the moving party, the court held that summary judgment was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers, citing Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851.
Takeaways
This case illustrates an important principle in summary judgment practice: a movant who submits evidence that contradicts their own theory of the case will fail to meet the prima facie burden. Here, the defendants sought to characterize the collision as a straightforward rear-end accident in which the plaintiff bore sole fault. However, the deposition transcripts they submitted revealed conflicting accounts of the accident’s circumstances, creating triable issues of fact that the defendants themselves introduced into the record.
The decision is also noteworthy for involving an electric bike collision, reflecting the increasingly common presence of e-bikes on New York roads. While the court did not specifically address any unique legal issues related to e-bikes, the case demonstrates that standard negligence principles governing motor vehicle accidents — including the rear-end collision presumption — apply equally to collisions involving these vehicles.
Practitioners should note the application of the Winegrad principle: when a summary judgment movant fails to make a prima facie showing, the motion must be denied regardless of whether the opposition papers are sufficient. This means that even a weak opposition will survive if the movant has not carried the initial burden.
Why It Matters
For personal injury practitioners, this case reinforces the importance of carefully evaluating all evidence before filing a summary judgment motion. If the evidence a movant intends to submit contains internal inconsistencies or supports the opposing party’s version of events, the motion will fail at the threshold. Deposition testimony must be reviewed holistically — a defendant’s own testimony may conflict with the plaintiff’s in ways that create fact issues defeating summary judgment.
The case also has practical implications for the growing number of accidents involving electric bikes. As e-bike usage increases in urban areas, collisions between e-bikes and motor vehicles will generate more litigation. This decision confirms that traditional negligence analysis applies to these cases, and that fault determinations in such accidents will typically present questions of fact for a jury rather than being resolved as a matter of law.