A New York appellate court has reversed a lower court's decision in the case of Soto v. Mastropieri, allowing a personal injury lawsuit to move forward. The ruling, made on June 3, 2026, affects Kyle Ann Soto, who alleged she was injured when struck by a vehicle driven by Lorenzo Mastropieri. The court's decision is significant as it highlights the complexities of establishing liability in personal injury cases.
The case began when Soto filed a lawsuit against Mastropieri, claiming she sustained injuries after being hit by his vehicle while crossing Merrick Road in Lynbrook. According to Soto, she saw Mastropieri waiting at an intersection before he turned left onto the road. She asserted that there were no other vehicles nearby at the time of the incident. In contrast, Mastropieri testified that he did not see Soto or any other pedestrians when he made the turn, stating he was traveling at a slow speed and had his foot on the brake.
The dispute escalated when Mastropieri filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to have Soto's complaint dismissed. Soto countered with a cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and to strike an errata sheet related to Mastropieri's deposition. The lower court, however, ruled in favor of Mastropieri, granting his motion and dismissing Soto's cross-motion.
The case was brought before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, where judges Betsy Barros, Linda Christopher, Carl J. Landicino, and Laurence L. Love reviewed the arguments. The court found that the lower court had erred in its decision.
The court ruled that Soto had established a prima facie case for negligence, stating, "A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident." The judges noted that Mastropieri failed to demonstrate that he was not at fault for the accident, thus allowing Soto's case to continue.
In its decision, the appellate court also addressed the issue of the errata sheet submitted by Mastropieri, which contained changes to his deposition testimony. The court found that the changes were submitted too late, stating, "The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was to strike the errata sheet to the transcript of the defendant's deposition." This ruling reinforced the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in legal proceedings.
The court's decision to reverse the lower court's judgment means that Soto's complaint is reinstated, and the case will proceed to trial. The judges emphasized that the defendant's failure to see Soto, despite her being in a position that should have been visible, could be considered a proximate cause of her injuries.
This ruling could have broader implications for personal injury cases in New York. It underscores the necessity for defendants in negligence cases to provide clear evidence of their lack of fault. The decision also highlights the importance of procedural compliance, particularly regarding deposition procedures and timelines.
Moving forward, the case will be returned to the lower court for further proceedings. Soto's legal team, represented by Scott A. Wolinetz, P.C., will have the opportunity to present their case in front of a jury. Meanwhile, Mastropieri's counsel, James F. Butler with Kathleen E. Fioretti, will be tasked with defending against the reinstated claims.
As the case progresses, it will be essential to monitor how the court addresses the issues of liability and negligence in light of this ruling. The outcome could set important precedents for similar cases in the future.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether there are plans for further appeals or related cases pending. However, the appellate court's ruling provides a clear path for Soto to seek justice for her alleged injuries, emphasizing the judicial system's role in addressing personal injury claims.