New York Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Published on: May 1, 2026

First Department Clarifies Impact of Graves Amendment on Rental Car Insurance Coverage: Second Child v. Edge Auto, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01432

by Stephen Bilkis

Motor vehicle accidents involving rental vehicles often raise complicated insurance coverage issues. In New York, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370 requires rental car companies to maintain certain insurance coverage for vehicles they place on the road. For many years, courts interpreted the statute as requiring rental companies to provide primary insurance coverage to renters up to the statutory minimum limits. However, Congress changed the legal landscape when it enacted the Graves Amendment in 2005.

In Second Child v. Edge Auto, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01432, the Appellate Division, First Department, considered whether a rental car company and its insurer were required to provide primary insurance coverage and indemnification to renters involved in a motor vehicle accident. The decision addressed the interaction between Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370, the Court of Appeals’ decision in ELRAC, Inc. v. Ward, 96 N.Y.2d 58 (2001), and the federal Graves Amendment. The case provides important guidance regarding the extent of a rental car company’s insurance obligations in New York.

Background Facts

Published on: May 22, 2025

Summary Judgment Granted for Plaintiffs After Fatal Car Crash. Spivak v. Heyward, 248 A.D.2d 58 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case involving a fatal car accident, the Appellate Division addressed whether a driver who admitted to falling asleep at the wheel could be found negligent as a matter of law. The lower court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed. The case clarified the legal standards for holding drivers responsible when they fall asleep while operating a vehicle.

Background Facts
The plaintiffs brought a lawsuit after their son died in a car accident. He had been a passenger in a vehicle driven by defendant Timothy M. Heyward. According to the evidence, Heyward fell asleep while driving. As a result, the car left the roadway and went down an embankment, causing the death of the passenger.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs presented evidence showing that Heyward had admitted to falling asleep at the wheel. The defendants did not offer any evidence to dispute that admission. However, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion, finding that it could not determine negligence as a matter of law based solely on Heyward’s admission.

Published on: January 20, 2025

Plaintiff’s car accident injury claim dismissed due to treatment gap and intervening condition. Pommells v. Perez, 4 N.Y.3d 566 (N.Y. 2005)

by Stephen Bilkis

Under New York law, “serious injuries” are defined under Insurance Law § 5102(d) as injuries resulting in specific, significant harm. These include death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, fractures, loss of a fetus, permanent loss or limitation of use of a body organ or system, or medically determined injuries impairing daily activities for at least 90 days within 180 days post-accident. This definition determines whether a plaintiff can pursue damages beyond basic economic losses in motor vehicle accident cases.

In Pommells v. Perez the Court of Appeals examined New York’s No-Fault Law and its “serious injury” in the context of personal injury claims arising from a car accident. The case demonstrates the challenges of proving serious injuries under the law, particularly when gaps in treatment or preexisting conditions are involved.

Background Facts

Published on: June 26, 2024

Court orders new trial for past pain damages in motorcycle accident case. Melnick v. Chase 148 A.D.3d 1589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a personal injury case, “pain and suffering” refers to the physical and emotional distress experienced by the plaintiff due to their injuries. It encompasses the immediate and ongoing discomfort, anguish, and limitations caused by the accident. This includes physical pain from injuries such as fractures, sprains, or internal trauma, as well as emotional suffering like anxiety, depression, or loss of enjoyment of life activities.

Future pain and suffering, on the other hand, pertains to the anticipated physical and emotional distress the plaintiff is likely to endure as a result of their injuries in the future. It considers the long-term impact of the injuries on the plaintiff’s life, including any ongoing medical treatments, chronic pain, or permanent disabilities that may affect their quality of life. Courts evaluate future pain and suffering based on expert medical testimony and evidence presented during the trial to predict the extent and duration of these future hardships.

In legal terms, both types of pain and suffering are elements of non-economic damages sought in personal injury claims. They aim to compensate the plaintiff for the intangible losses and hardships endured due to the defendant’s negligence or wrongful conduct, beyond quantifiable economic losses like medical expenses or lost wages.

Published on: June 26, 2024

Case alleging police negligence linked to distracted driving incident. Alhaji v. City of N.Y. 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 32171 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a recent legal action concerning alleged negligent motor vehicle operation, defendants sought reargument of a court order requiring disclosure of cell phone records. The relevance of cell phone records lies in determining whether the defendant, a police officer, was distracted by phone use while driving, potentially contributing to the accident. The plaintiff alleges that the officer negligently entered a highway in the wrong direction, leading to a collision that caused significant injuries. Cell phone records could provide crucial evidence to substantiate or refute this claim. They may reveal the officer’s phone activity just before and after the accident, shedding light on his state of attention and actions leading up to the collision.

Given the legal framework, negligence in motor vehicle operation includes distractions such as cell phone use, which is prohibited by law while driving. Proving that the officer was using his phone during the incident could establish negligence per se, making it easier to establish liability for the accident. Conversely, if the records show no phone activity at the time, it could support the officer’s defense against the negligence claim. Therefore, these records are pivotal in determining the sequence of events and the officer’s state of attention during the critical moments leading to the collision.

Background Facts

Published on: June 26, 2024

In a distracted driving case, Court finds New York State 75% liable for claimant’s accident injuries. Jordan v. State # 2019-029-040 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jun. 26, 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a distracted driving case, the claimant was involved in an accident with a state-owned van. Using a cell phone while driving is commonly referred to as distracted driving, a dangerous practice that diverts a driver’s attention away from the road. In New York, this behavior is explicitly prohibited under traffic laws due to its potential to cause accidents, injuries, and fatalities. The laws aim to ensure that drivers maintain full focus on operating their vehicles safely. Violations of these laws can result in fines, penalties, and legal consequences, reflecting the serious risks associated with distracted driving and the importance of adhering to regulations designed to protect public safety on the roads.

Background Facts

Ruben de Jesus Monroy Jordan was employed by Shining Star Landscaping and had traveled to New City for a landscaping job at a residence located off West Clarkstown Road (WCR). While preparing to cross WCR, Mr. Monroy Jordan observed fast-moving traffic in both directions. He positioned the mower near the edge of the road and was waiting for a safe moment to proceed when a van approached from his left. Despite his view being unobstructed, he did not see the van until it collided with the mower. The impact threw him into the air, causing him to land on the pavement and sustain injuries. The van, which had struck the mower and became entangled with it, dragged both for a significant distance. During his testimony, Mr. Monroy Jordan mentioned that he observed the defendant using a cell phone while driving, which he believed contributed to the accident.

Published on: June 26, 2024

Insurance coverage denied due to discrepancy in insured business activities. Hermitage Ins. Co. v. TAC Blacktop, Inc. 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 31516 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a recent legal dispute, Hermitage Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment against TAC Blacktop, Inc. regarding coverage under a policy issued to TAC. The case involved two personal injury actions stemming from a motorcycle accident allegedly caused by TAC’s paving activities. Hermitage moved for summary judgment, asserting that TAC’s operations exceeded the scope of coverage defined in the insurance policy.

Insurance companies only insure activities explicitly within the scope of the policy, as outlined in detailed classifications and coverage limitations. In this case, Hermitage Insurance argued that TAC Blacktop’s paving activities, which involved covering a trench on a roadway, fell outside the policy’s designated classifications for driveway, parking area, or sidewalk paving. This precise delineation is important because insurance policies are crafted to mitigate specific risks associated with defined operations. The allegations highlight how deviations from these specified activities can lead to coverage disputes.

Background Facts

Published on: June 26, 2024

Nationwide’s denial of UM/SUM claim questioned in subway moped case. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Faulkner 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 30985 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a recent legal proceeding under CPLR 7503, Nationwide General Insurance Company sought a permanent stay of arbitration concerning the injured’s claim for uninsured motorist (UM)/supplementary underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits. Faulkner, the injured, contested the petition. Faulkner alleged she sustained injuries on November 15, 2022, from a hit-and-run moped incident at the New York City subway’s Times Square station, leading to a denial of her claim under John C. Faulkner’s Nationwide policy.

In New York, Uninsured Motorist benefits provide coverage to policyholders when they are involved in an accident caused by an uninsured or hit-and-run driver. This coverage helps pay for medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages that result from the accident. UM benefits are important as they ensure that victims of accidents with uninsured drivers can still receive compensation for their losses, despite the at-fault driver’s lack of insurance.

Supplementary Underinsured Motorist benefits in New York extend coverage beyond the limits of the at-fault driver’s insurance policy. If the at-fault driver’s insurance coverage is insufficient to cover the full extent of the victim’s damages, SUM benefits can provide additional compensation up to the limits of the policyholder’s SUM coverage. This coverage becomes important in cases where the damages exceed the limits of the at-fault driver’s insurance, ensuring that victims receive adequate compensation for their injuries and losses.

Published on: June 26, 2024

Court grants hearing on timely reporting in hit-and-run case. In re Progressive Ins. Co. v. Otero 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 51319 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In re Progressive Ins. Co. v. Otero 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 51319 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023) involves a hit-and-run accident that occurred on March 9, 2023. The case highlights the complexities surrounding uninsured motorist claims and the procedural steps in dealing with hit-and-run incidents in New York.

Background Facts

On March 9, 2023, the respondent was driving his vehicle when he was involved in a hit-and-run accident at the intersection of Oranite Avenue and Lasalle Street in Richmond, New York. Following this incident, the respondent sustained injuries severe enough to meet the criteria of a “serious injury” under NY CLS Ins § 5102. Immediately after the accident, the respondent was admitted to Richmond University Medical Center, where he stayed until March 11, 2023, due to his injuries, which prevented him from filing a police report at that time. Nevertheless, he managed to file a MV-104 report on March 12, 2023.

Published on: June 26, 2024

Court dismisses claims against Sunflower Express in bus accident case. Yao v. World Wide Travel of Greater N.Y. Ltd. 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 32473 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a complex multi-party legal case, plaintiffs sought damages from Sunflower Express, Webster Trucking Corp., and Joshua Alphonso Reid, stemming from a devastating bus accident.

Background Facts

On March 12, 2011, a devastating accident occurred on Interstate 95 in the Bronx, New York. A bus, driven by Ophadell Williams, was returning to Manhattan’s Chinatown from Mohegan Sun Casino in Connecticut. While carrying 32 passengers, the bus veered off the southbound lanes around 5:39 a.m., collided with a guardrail, overturned, and was impaled by a sign pole, resulting in 15 fatalities and numerous injuries. Investigations were conducted by the New York State Police, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Bronx County District Attorney, which led to Williams facing charges of manslaughter and assault, although he was ultimately acquitted.