Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Justin A. BONILLA, plaintiff, Joel E. Caraballo, respondent, v. Aileen BETANCES, appellant, et al., defendants.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Aileen Betances appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Katherine Levine, J.), dated September 4, 2024. The order denied that defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against her.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the renewed motion of the defendant Aileen Betances for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against her is granted.
The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that they alleged they sustained when a vehicle in which they were passengers (hereinafter the host vehicle) was struck in the rear. It was alleged that the host vehicle was the lead vehicle and the defendant Aileen Betances (hereinafter the defendant) owned and/or operated an offending vehicle. In an order dated September 4, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against her. The defendant appeals.
“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” (Boulos v. Lerner–Harrington, 124 A.D.3d 709, 709, 2 N.Y.S.3d 526). Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that neither she nor her vehicle was involved in the accident (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572; see generally Forte v. City of New York, 237 A.D.3d 1164, 1165, 233 N.Y.S.3d 639; Han Hao Huang v. “John Doe”, 169 A.D.3d 1014, 1015, 94 N.Y.S.3d 572). The papers filed in opposition to the defendant's renewed motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against her.
GENOVESI, J.P., FORD, VENTURA and QUIRK, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2024-11569
Decided: April 22, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)