The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled on September 16, 2026, in the case of Olivares v. Andacky (Docket No. 2024-12631). The court decided to uphold a previous ruling that favored a driver involved in a personal injury lawsuit. This decision affects the plaintiff, Juan Olivares, who claimed he was injured in a traffic accident caused by the defendant, Brian K. Andacky. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards for negligence in traffic accidents.
In this case, Olivares alleged that he suffered injuries after a truck driven by Andacky collided with his vehicle. The incident occurred when Olivares attempted to turn left onto a busy road after exiting a gas station. He crossed multiple lanes of traffic, and the truck struck his vehicle before he could complete the turn. The dispute centered on whether Andacky was negligent in causing the accident.
The case began in the Supreme Court of Nassau County, where Olivares filed a lawsuit seeking damages for his injuries. After both parties completed the discovery process, Andacky requested a summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. This means he argued that there was no need for a trial because the evidence clearly showed he was not at fault. The Supreme Court agreed with Andacky, leading Olivares to appeal the decision.
The Appellate Division reviewed the evidence presented in the case. The court found that Andacky had established his right to summary judgment, meaning he proved he was not negligent. The judges noted, "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 court also pointed out that both drivers saw each other’s vehicles only a second before the collision, indicating that Andacky could not have avoided the accident.
The ruling emphasized that while drivers generally have a right to expect others to obey traffic laws, they still have a duty to avoid collisions. However, the court noted that a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to another vehicle that fails to yield is not considered negligent if a collision occurs. This principle played a crucial role in the court's decision.
The judges in this case included Angela G. Iannacci, Janice A. Taylor, Carl J. Landicino, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez. They unanimously agreed to affirm the Supreme Court's decision, which dismissed Olivares' complaint. The court's ruling also stated, "In opposition to the defendant's prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact." This means that Olivares did not provide enough evidence to dispute Andacky's claims of non-negligence.
The impact of this ruling could be significant for future personal injury cases involving traffic accidents in New York. It reinforces the idea that drivers who have the right-of-way are not automatically liable for accidents, especially when they have little time to react. This could affect how similar cases are argued in court, potentially leading to more dismissals of negligence claims when evidence shows that the other party acted recklessly.
Going forward, this ruling may influence how personal injury lawyers approach cases involving traffic accidents. They may need to gather more evidence to prove negligence if the other driver had the right-of-way. This decision could also serve as a precedent for future cases, shaping the legal landscape around traffic accident liability.
As for what’s next, Olivares has the option to appeal this decision to a higher court, but details were not available in the court filing regarding whether he plans to do so. There may also be related cases pending that could further clarify the standards for negligence in traffic accidents.