A New York court has ruled in favor of Zukhro Khodjaeva and Bulent Gundogdu, plaintiffs in a personal injury case against the City of New York. The ruling, issued by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on September 16, 2026, reverses a lower court's decision that had denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. This decision is significant as it clarifies liability in multi-vehicle collisions, particularly those involving government vehicles.
The case stems from a four-vehicle collision that took place on the Long Island Expressway. Khodjaeva was driving a vehicle that was struck from behind by a New York City Fire Department box truck. Gundogdu was a passenger in Khodjaeva's vehicle at the time of the accident. Following the initial collision, Khodjaeva's vehicle was propelled into another vehicle, leading to further damages and injuries.
In their lawsuit, Khodjaeva and Gundogdu sought damages for the injuries they sustained in the accident. The defendants in the case included the City of New York and Christopher Viera, the driver of the box truck. The defendants responded to the lawsuit by asserting affirmative defenses and filing a counterclaim against Khodjaeva. The case was initially heard in the Supreme Court of Queens County, where the judge, Kevin J. Kerrigan, denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on November 27, 2024.
Following the denial, Khodjaeva and Gundogdu appealed the decision to the Appellate Division. The plaintiffs argued that they had established a prima facie case of negligence against the defendants and that the defendants failed to provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision. The Appellate Division, led by Presiding Justice Hector D. Lasalle, reviewed the evidence presented by both parties.
The court ruled in favor of Khodjaeva and Gundogdu, reversing the lower court's order. The judges noted, "A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision." The court found that Khodjaeva and Gundogdu had met their burden of proof by demonstrating that Khodjaeva's vehicle was stopped due to traffic when it was struck from behind.
The judges also pointed out that the defendants failed to provide any evidence to support their claims of negligence against Khodjaeva. They stated, "Viera provided no explanation for the collision beyond his inability to brake in time before striking Khodjaeva's vehicle." As a result, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissed the defendants' affirmative defenses and counterclaim.
This ruling has important implications for future personal injury cases, especially those involving rear-end collisions. It reinforces the principle that a driver who hits another vehicle from behind is typically presumed to be negligent unless they can provide a valid explanation for their actions. This decision may also impact how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly those involving government vehicles.
The outcome of this case could influence how plaintiffs approach similar lawsuits, knowing that the courts may favor their claims in instances of clear negligence. It also highlights the importance of presenting strong evidence in defense of such claims, especially for government entities that may face lawsuits related to their operations.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether the defendants will seek further legal recourse. The ruling from the Appellate Division is significant, but it is not the final word. The defendants may consider appealing the decision to a higher court. However, details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing.