A New York appellate court has upheld a ruling that denies a motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case involving the Food Bank for New York City. The decision, made on May 20, 2026, affects the Food Bank and two transportation companies accused of being linked to a rear-end collision that left a passenger injured.
The case, Cherry v. Food Bank for New York City, centers around an incident that occurred on June 22, 2017. Rosalind Cherry, the plaintiff, alleges that she sustained injuries when the vehicle she was riding in was struck from behind by a tractor trailer. The trailer reportedly left the scene of the accident, prompting Cherry to file a lawsuit against the Food Bank and the companies associated with the tractor trailer.
Cherry's lawsuit claims that the tractor trailer was operated by an unknown driver on behalf of the Food Bank. In an amended complaint, she included S.L. Benfica Transportation, Inc. and ERICA Transportation, Inc. as defendants, asserting that they owned and operated the tractor trailer involved in the accident. The case was filed in Kings County and has been assigned the docket number 2024-08036.
The defendants, including the Food Bank, Benfica, and ERICA, sought to have the case dismissed through a motion for summary judgment. They argued that service records indicated the tractor trailer was out of service during the time of the accident. However, Cherry contested this claim, stating that the defendants did not provide sufficient proof that the service records were accurately maintained by ERICA.
On July 5, 2024, the Supreme Court of Kings County denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The defendants then appealed the decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York.
In its ruling, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision. The judges noted that the defendants failed to establish the admissibility of the service records they presented. The court stated, "Since the defendants failed to establish the admissibility of the service records purportedly showing that the trailer with the license plate number alleged in the amended complaint was not in service at the time of the accident, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them."
The judges involved in the ruling were Cheryl E. Chambers, Paul Wooten, Lourdes M. Ventura, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez. They concluded that the defendants' arguments regarding the service records were improperly raised for the first time on appeal and that the defendants did not lay a proper foundation for the records' admissibility.
This ruling is significant as it allows the personal injury case to proceed, meaning that Cherry will have the opportunity to present her claims in court. The decision emphasizes the importance of proper documentation and evidence in personal injury cases, particularly regarding the admissibility of business records.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond just this case. It sets a precedent for future personal injury cases where defendants may attempt to dismiss claims based on business records. The court's insistence on proper foundational evidence underscores the necessity for defendants to establish the credibility of their documentation before relying on it in legal proceedings.
Going forward, the ruling means that the defendants will have to prepare for trial. They will need to present their case, including any evidence that supports their claims regarding the accident and the service records. The outcome of this case could have implications for how similar cases are handled in the future.
As for next steps, the defendants may consider appealing the ruling further, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeal. Additionally, no related cases were mentioned in the opinion, indicating that this case stands alone at this time.