In a significant ruling for cyclists, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided on June 17, 2026, that a cyclist injured in a collision with a vehicle is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. The case, Rosario v. Scudieri (Docket No. 2025-02642), involves plaintiff Abel Rosario, Jr., who was injured when his bicycle collided with a vehicle driven by Robert Scudieri. This decision has implications for how liability is determined in similar cases involving cyclists and motorists.
The ruling comes after an earlier decision by the Supreme Court in Queens County, which denied Rosario's motion for summary judgment on liability. The case highlights the responsibilities of drivers to maintain a proper lookout for cyclists and to signal their intentions when turning.
Abel Rosario, Jr. was riding his bicycle in Queens on May 28, 2015, when the accident occurred. He was traveling westbound on the eastbound side of Myrtle Avenue, while Scudieri was heading eastbound. As Rosario approached Union Turnpike, he was in a crosswalk when Scudieri made a right turn from Myrtle Avenue onto Union Turnpike, leading to the collision.
Following the incident, Rosario filed a lawsuit seeking damages for his injuries. He argued that Scudieri was negligent in failing to signal his turn and in not being vigilant while driving. Initially, the Supreme Court denied Rosario's motion for summary judgment, prompting him to appeal the decision.
The Appellate Division, consisting of Justices Angela G. Iannacci, Paul Wooten, Deborah A. Dowling, and James P. McCormack, reviewed the case and ultimately reversed the lower court's decision. The court ruled that Rosario had established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law regarding liability. The opinion noted, "A driver has a common-law duty to see that which he [or she] should have seen through the proper use of his [or her] senses."
The court also highlighted that Scudieri violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 by failing to signal his intention to turn. This failure, combined with the driver's negligence in not observing the conditions before making the turn, was sufficient for the court to grant Rosario's motion for summary judgment.
In its ruling, the court emphasized that a plaintiff is no longer required to demonstrate freedom from comparative fault when establishing a prima facie case against a defendant regarding liability. This marks a shift in how courts may handle similar cases in the future.
The impact of this ruling is significant for cyclists and drivers alike. It reinforces the responsibility of drivers to be attentive and to signal their intentions clearly, particularly in areas where cyclists are present. The decision may encourage more cyclists to pursue legal action when they are injured in accidents, knowing that they may not have to prove they were free from fault to establish liability on the part of a motorist.
Furthermore, this ruling sets a precedent that could influence future cases involving cyclist injuries. It clarifies the legal standards that apply when determining driver liability in accidents involving bicycles, potentially leading to greater accountability for drivers who fail to adhere to traffic laws.
Looking ahead, the case may not be the last word on this issue. While Rosario's victory in the Appellate Division is a significant win, there is always the possibility of further appeals. However, details about any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.
In conclusion, the Appellate Division's ruling in Rosario v. Scudieri serves as an important reminder of the legal obligations drivers have toward cyclists. It underscores the necessity of vigilance and proper signaling to ensure the safety of all road users.