The Law Offices of Michael H. Joseph recently secured a significant legal victory for a client injured in a truck accident on New York City’s Robert F. Kennedy Bridge. On September 30, 2026, the Bronx County Supreme Court granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed the defendants’ comparative negligence defense.
The defendants claimed that the firm’s client had been driving erratically and attempting to pass their truck on the right. However, dashcam footage showed the truck veering into the client’s lane and causing the collision.
The ruling establishes the defendants’ liability and prevents them from reducing the client’s eventual compensation by arguing that he contributed to the accident. Although damages have not yet been determined, the decision resolves two critical issues in the client’s favor.
Key Takeaways
- The firm secured summary judgment on liability. The court determined that the truck driver was responsible for causing the collision on the RFK Bridge.
- Dashcam footage proved crucial. Video evidence contradicted the truck driver’s sworn account and established how the accident occurred.
- The comparative negligence defense was dismissed. The defendants cannot argue that the firm’s client contributed to causing the collision to reduce his eventual damages award.
- The firm obtained the ruling before depositions. The court granted summary judgment even though discovery had not been completed.
- The case will proceed on damages. The court established liability but did not determine the amount of compensation the client may recover.
What Happened in the RFK Bridge Truck Accident?
The collision occurred on September 5, 2024, on the westbound Robert F. Kennedy Bridge between the Bronx and Manhattan.
The firm’s client, a New York City Police Department officer with 18 years of experience, was traveling in the right lane when a truck in the adjacent lane veered into his vehicle.
According to the client’s sworn affirmation, he was driving lawfully within his lane and had not contributed to the collision. His vehicle was equipped with a dashcam that recorded the events leading up to the crash.
The truck driver disputed responsibility. In his sworn affidavit, he claimed that:
- He was driving in the second lane from the right and had not changed lanes.
- The client was driving erratically and attempting to pass on the right.
- The client’s vehicle entered the truck’s blind spot and struck its rear portion near the step ladder.
- The client appeared to be speeding at the time of impact.
The defendants argued that the client had violated New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1123, which addresses passing on the right, and that his conduct contributed to the accident.
However, the dashcam footage directly contradicted their account.
How Did Dashcam Evidence Help the Firm Win Summary Judgment?
The dashcam recording showed the firm’s client traveling straight within his lane, alongside the truck, for several seconds before the truck suddenly veered right into his vehicle.
The footage directly contradicted the truck driver’s claim that he had remained within his lane and that the client caused the collision by attempting to pass on the right.
In granting summary judgment, the Bronx County Supreme Court stated:
“The video plainly and unambiguously shows Plaintiff traveling straight, side-by-side with the truck for several seconds, before Defendant […] suddenly veered into Plaintiff’s lane.“
The court determined that the truck driver’s sworn statements were insufficient to create a genuine factual dispute because they were contradicted by the objective video evidence.
Why Was the Dashcam Footage Admissible?
Video footage must be properly authenticated before a court can rely on it as evidence.
In this case, the firm’s client submitted a sworn affirmation establishing that the footage was an accurate copy of the recording depicting the accident.
The defendants did not challenge the video’s authenticity, accuracy, completeness, or chain of custody. They also provided no evidence suggesting that it had been altered.
The recording therefore provided admissible evidence establishing how the collision occurred.
This ruling demonstrates the importance of preserving and authenticating video evidence in disputed truck accident cases, particularly when the drivers offer conflicting accounts.
What New York Traffic Laws Did the Court Apply?
New York law requires motorists to maintain their lanes and ensure that lane changes can be completed safely.
The court discussed several provisions of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law:
- VTL § 1128(a): Requires vehicles to remain as nearly as practicable within a single lane and prohibits changing lanes until the driver determines that the movement can be made safely.
- VTL § 1163(a): Prohibits drivers from turning or moving right or left unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety.
- VTL § 1163(d): Addresses the requirement to signal appropriately before turning or changing course.
Together, these laws require drivers to observe surrounding traffic, maintain proper lane positioning, and avoid unsafe movements.
The court explained that an unexcused violation of a traffic law constitutes negligence.
Because the dashcam footage showed the truck crossing into the client’s lane and causing the collision, the court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of negligence under VTL § 1128(a).
The defendants failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact.
What Is Summary Judgment in a New York Truck Accident Case?
Summary judgment allows a court to resolve a legal issue without a trial when the admissible evidence establishes that no genuine dispute of material fact requires a jury’s determination.
In a truck accident lawsuit, an injured plaintiff may seek summary judgment on liability when the evidence establishes that the defendant’s negligence caused the collision.
Once the plaintiff establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant must present evidence demonstrating that a material factual dispute remains.
A conflicting statement alone may not be enough, particularly when objective evidence disproves that statement.
The court cited Miranda v. Century Waste Services, LLC, 210 AD3d 590 (1st Dept 2022), in which the Appellate Division held that a driver’s affidavit was insufficient to defeat summary judgment when contradicted by video footage.
The Firm Secured Summary Judgment Before Depositions
One noteworthy aspect of this victory is that the Law Offices of Michael H. Joseph obtained summary judgment before depositions had been conducted.
The defendants argued that the motion was premature because discovery, including the client’s deposition, remained incomplete.
The court nevertheless granted the motion based on the evidence already presented.
This demonstrates that injured motorists do not always have to wait until discovery concludes to establish liability. When admissible evidence clearly establishes how an accident occurred, a court may resolve liability before trial.
Why Did the Court Dismiss the Comparative Negligence Defense?
The court did more than establish the defendants’ liability. It also dismissed their affirmative defense alleging that the firm’s client contributed to causing the collision.
Under New York’s comparative negligence law, an injured person’s damages may be reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to that person.
For example, if a plaintiff receives a $500,000 damages award but is found 20% responsible for causing the accident, the recoverable amount would generally be reduced to $400,000.
New York law distinguishes between establishing a defendant’s liability and determining whether the plaintiff also bears responsibility.
A plaintiff does not have to prove freedom from comparative negligence to obtain summary judgment on liability. However, a plaintiff may separately request dismissal of a comparative negligence defense when the evidence establishes that the plaintiff did not contribute to the collision.
That is what the Law Offices of Michael H. Joseph accomplished.
The defendants alleged that the client was speeding, driving erratically, and unlawfully passing the truck on the right. However, the dashcam footage showed him proceeding straight within his lane before the truck veered into it.
In its analysis, the court cited Calderon v. Calise, 214 AD3d 446 (1st Dept 2023), and Aponte v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 230 AD3d 1053 (1st Dept 2024), decisions involving video evidence demonstrating responsibility for motor vehicle collisions.
Because the defendants’ allegations were contradicted by the recording, the court struck their tenth affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence.
As a result, the defendants cannot reduce the client’s eventual compensation by claiming that he was partially responsible for causing the accident.
Does Summary Judgment Mean the Truck Accident Case Is Over?
No. Summary judgment on liability establishes legal responsibility for the accident, but it does not automatically determine how much compensation an injured person may recover.
Additional proceedings may be necessary to address the plaintiff’s injuries, damages, and the appropriate amount of compensation.
The September 30, 2026, decision was designated a non-final disposition, and the court scheduled a preliminary conference for November 5, 2026.
However, the ruling eliminates the need to litigate the defendants’ liability or the client’s alleged comparative negligence at trial.
What Does This Victory Mean for Other NYC Truck Accident Victims?
This decision highlights the importance of preserving objective evidence when truck drivers and their insurers dispute responsibility for a collision.
Truck accident cases frequently involve conflicting descriptions of lane changes, merging maneuvers, blind spots, and traffic violations.
Important evidence may include:
- Dashcam recordings and traffic camera footage
- Nearby surveillance video
- Photographs of vehicle damage and the accident scene
- Witness statements and police accident reports
- Commercial vehicle electronic data and other available records
When properly preserved and authenticated, this evidence may establish which driver violated traffic laws and whether an injured motorist contributed to the collision.
The ruling also demonstrates that a truck driver’s claim that another vehicle was in a blind spot does not automatically establish negligence by the other motorist.
Commercial truck drivers must exercise reasonable care when changing lanes and ensure that their movements can be completed safely.
Experienced NYC Truck Accident Representation at the Law Offices of Michael H. Joseph
This recent court victory demonstrates the importance of thorough case preparation, reliable evidence, and effective legal advocacy in contested truck accident cases.
By presenting authenticated dashcam footage and challenging the defendants’ contradictory account of the collision, the Law Offices of Michael H. Joseph secured summary judgment on liability and successfully eliminated the comparative negligence defense.
At the Law Offices of Michael H. Joseph, we represent people injured in commercial truck accidents and other serious motor vehicle collisions throughout New York City. We investigate accidents, work to preserve critical evidence, and build cases designed to hold negligent drivers and other responsible parties accountable.
If you or a loved one has been injured in a commercial truck accident in the Bronx, Manhattan, or elsewhere in New York City, contact the Law Offices of Michael H. Joseph for a free consultation to discuss your legal rights and options. Call 212-858-0503.
