A New York Supreme Court judge has denied a motion for summary judgment in the case of Villanueva v. Rambarran, Index No. 156049/2021. The ruling allows the lawsuit to continue, which involves a pedestrian who was struck by a vehicle while crossing a street in Queens. The decision affects the plaintiff, Ralph Villanueva, and the defendants, Krishan Rambarran and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed). This case highlights the responsibilities of utility companies and their contractors regarding pedestrian safety at work sites.
The incident occurred on June 2, 2021, when Villanueva was hit by a minivan driven by Rambarran while he was crossing 109th Avenue. The road was obstructed by a Con Ed truck that was parked in the crosswalk, which Villanueva claims obstructed his view of oncoming traffic. The case raises questions about whether Con Ed followed proper safety protocols at the work site and whether the parked vehicle contributed to the accident.
The background of this case involves a dispute over liability for the accident. Villanueva filed a complaint against Con Ed and Rambarran, claiming that the utility company failed to provide adequate safety measures to protect pedestrians. Con Ed argued that its vehicle was a “hazard vehicle” engaged in a hazardous operation, which exempted it from certain traffic laws. The case was brought to the New York Supreme Court, where both sides presented their arguments regarding the circumstances of the accident.
Judge Christopher Chin presided over the case and issued the ruling on January 9, 2026. The court found that Con Ed's motion for summary judgment to dismiss Villanueva's complaint was denied. The judge noted that there were conflicting testimonies regarding the safety measures in place at the time of the accident. Specifically, while Con Ed claimed that safety protocols were followed, Villanueva testified that he did not see adequate safety devices, such as a flagger or sufficient warning signs.
The court ruled, "there are factual issues here, including as to whether a flagger should have been used as it is clear from the testimony that traffic in the two directions on 109th Avenue may have been required to use a single lane for a limited distance and whether the failure to use a flagger amounted to reckless disregard for the safety of others."
Furthermore, the court found that Con Ed did not meet its burden to dismiss Rambarran's crossclaims for contribution and indemnification. The judge stated that while Rambarran's vehicle struck Villanueva, there had been no determination of negligence on Rambarran's part. The court emphasized that Con Ed had not established that it was free from negligence, making the dismissal of the crossclaims premature.
This ruling has significant implications for the case moving forward. It allows Villanueva to continue pursuing his claims against both Con Ed and Rambarran. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring pedestrian safety at work sites, particularly when utility companies are involved. The outcome of this case could set a precedent regarding the responsibilities of utility companies in similar situations.
The denial of summary judgment means that the case will proceed to trial, where both parties will have the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments in front of a jury. This ruling may influence how utility companies approach safety measures in the future, as they could face increased scrutiny over their practices at work sites.
As for what’s next, it is possible that Con Ed may appeal the ruling, although the court did not indicate any specific timeline for such actions. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court filing. The outcome of this case will be closely watched, as it could have broader implications for pedestrian safety and liability in New York.