A New York appellate court recently ruled against a plaintiff in a personal injury case stemming from a motor vehicle accident. The court's decision affects how liability is determined in similar cases, particularly regarding the burden of proof needed to establish negligence. The ruling came from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the case of Kuburovic v. Emsak, docket number 2025-04916, filed on August 26, 2026.
The case began when Milija Kuburovic, the plaintiff, sought damages for injuries he claimed to have sustained in a car accident involving a vehicle owned by Gamil Emsak and operated by Arefin Raiyan. The accident occurred at the intersection of the Van Wyck Expressway and Jamaica Avenue in Queens County. Kuburovic filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule that Emsak and Raiyan were liable for the accident and to dismiss their defenses regarding comparative negligence.
The dispute centers on whether Kuburovic could prove that the defendants were negligent and that their actions directly caused the accident. The case made its way to the appellate court after the Supreme Court of Queens County denied Kuburovic's motion for summary judgment on March 24, 2025. This denial prompted Kuburovic to appeal the decision, seeking a ruling that would favor him in the ongoing litigation.
The court ruled that Kuburovic did not meet the necessary legal standards to be granted summary judgment. The judges involved in the decision were Betsy Barros, Lara J. Genovesi, Helen Voutsinas, and Carl J. Landicino. The court stated, "A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries."
Despite Kuburovic's arguments, the court found that the defendants raised valid issues of fact that needed to be resolved in a trial. Specifically, the defendant driver, Raiyan, claimed that he entered the intersection when the traffic light was yellow, contradicting Kuburovic's assertion that he had a green light. The court noted that the credibility of Raiyan's statement was a matter for a jury to determine, stating, "the credibility of the defendant driver's assertion in his affirmation that he did not make the statement attributed to him in the certified police accident report is for a jury to determine."
Additionally, the court found that Kuburovic had not eliminated potential issues regarding his own comparative negligence in the accident. This means that while he sought to dismiss the defendants' claims of shared fault, the court believed there were still questions about his actions leading up to the accident that could affect the outcome of the case.
The court's ruling has implications for future personal injury cases in New York. It underscores the importance of establishing clear evidence of liability and the challenges plaintiffs may face when defendants raise questions about their own conduct. The decision reinforces the principle that both parties may share responsibility in accidents, and that the determination of fault often requires a full trial rather than a ruling based solely on the evidence presented in pre-trial motions.
Going forward, this ruling may influence how plaintiffs approach their cases, particularly in terms of gathering evidence and preparing for potential defenses from the opposing side. It highlights the necessity for plaintiffs to be thorough in their claims and to anticipate challenges regarding their own actions in accidents.
As for what’s next, it is unclear whether Kuburovic will appeal this decision further. The court's ruling does not prevent him from continuing to pursue his case in trial, where the issues of fact raised by the defendants will be examined in detail. There are no related cases mentioned in the court filing, but the outcome of this case could influence similar personal injury claims in the future.