A New York appellate court has reinstated a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a car accident that occurred in 2020. The decision affects the plaintiffs, Sherwin A. Hillman and others, who are seeking damages for injuries they sustained in the accident. The ruling allows them to continue their case against the drivers and vehicle owners involved, which may lead to a trial and potential compensation.
The case, Hillman v. Khedaroo, was decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on August 12, 2026, under docket number 2025-00763. The court reversed a previous ruling that had dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint against the defendants, which included vehicle owner Asher Benedikt and driver Arjune W. Khedaroo. This decision is significant as it allows the plaintiffs to pursue their claims after a series of legal challenges.
The dispute began after a vehicle operated by Charles L. Clarke, owned by Benedikt, collided with a vehicle operated by Khedaroo and owned by Wheels LT. The plaintiffs were passengers in Clarke's vehicle. They initially filed a lawsuit in February 2021, but no proof of service was submitted, leading to confusion in the legal proceedings. In August 2021, they filed a second lawsuit regarding the same accident, but that case was dismissed in May 2023 because the first case was still pending.
After the first case was voluntarily discontinued, the plaintiffs filed a new action in July 2023. Benedikt failed to respond to the complaint in a timely manner, prompting the plaintiffs to seek a default judgment against him. However, Benedikt and Khedaroo's legal teams argued that the case should be dismissed based on the doctrine of res judicata, claiming that the earlier dismissals barred the new lawsuit.
The court ruled that the previous dismissals did not constitute a judgment on the merits, which would prevent the plaintiffs from pursuing their claims. The judges, including Angela G. Iannacci, Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Paul Wooten, and Janice A. Taylor, stated, "the May 2023 order granting his motion... did not constitute a default judgment... and was not otherwise a determination on the merits as would bar this action under the doctrine of res judicata." This ruling means that the plaintiffs can continue their pursuit of damages.
Furthermore, the court addressed the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment against Benedikt. They found that the plaintiffs had provided adequate proof of service and the facts supporting their claims. The judges noted, "the plaintiffs established their entitlement to a default judgment against Benedikt by submitting proof of service of the summons and the complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of Benedikt's default." As a result, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for a default judgment against Benedikt.
This ruling has significant implications for the plaintiffs. They can now proceed with their case against Benedikt and Khedaroo, seeking compensation for their injuries. The court's decision also clarifies the application of res judicata in similar cases, indicating that a dismissal without a determination on the merits does not bar future claims.
Looking ahead, the plaintiffs can prepare for the next steps in their legal battle, which may include a trial to determine the extent of their injuries and the compensation they deserve. The defendants may also choose to appeal this ruling, although details about any potential appeal have not been disclosed in the court filing.
The outcome of this case will be closely watched, as it could influence similar personal injury cases in New York. The court's decision reinforces the importance of ensuring that all procedural requirements are met in legal actions, particularly when it comes to serving defendants and responding to complaints.