What did the court decide?

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court and dismissed the claims against Aileen Betances because she showed she and her car were not involved in the collision and the plaintiffs did not present contrary evidence.

Who is affected by this decision?

The plaintiffs who sued for personal injuries and the defendant Aileen Betances are directly affected; the case against Betances is dismissed.

What does this mean for the rest of the case?

Only the claims against Betances were dismissed; the remainder of the action against other defendants, if any, can continue.

Can the plaintiffs try to challenge this ruling further?

They could seek leave to appeal to a higher court if permitted, but they would need to show a basis for further review such as an error of law or unsettled question.

Bonilla v. Betances

Docket 2024-11569

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilReversed

Filed: Apr 22, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Reversed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02387
Docket: 2024-11569

Appeal from denial of a renewed summary judgment motion in a personal injury action

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed a Supreme Court order and granted defendant Aileen Betances' renewed summary judgment motion dismissing the amended complaint against her in a personal injury action. Plaintiffs alleged their vehicle was struck from the rear and that the defendant owned or operated the offending vehicle. The court held the defendant made a prima facie showing that she and her vehicle were not involved in the accident, and the plaintiffs' opposing papers failed to raise a triable issue of fact, so dismissal was appropriate.

Issues Decided

Whether the defendant established prima facie that she and her vehicle were not involved in the accident
Whether the plaintiffs' opposing papers raised a triable issue of fact to defeat summary judgment

Court's Reasoning

The court applied the rule that a defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action must establish prima facie that they were not at fault. The defendant submitted evidence showing neither she nor her vehicle was involved in the collision. The plaintiffs' opposition did not produce admissible evidence creating a triable issue of fact, so summary judgment was proper.

Authorities Cited

Boulos v Lerner-Harrington124 AD3d 709
Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.68 NY2d 320
Forte v City of New York237 AD3d 1164

Parties

Plaintiff: Justin A. Bonilla
Respondent: Joel E. Caraballo
Appellant: Aileen Betances

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-22
Supreme Court order date being appealed: 2024-09-04

What You Should Do Next

1
For the plaintiffs: consider appeal
Evaluate whether to seek further appellate review (permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals) by consulting counsel about possible legal errors or grounds for leave.
2
For the plaintiffs: proceed against other defendants
If there are remaining defendants, continue litigation against them, including discovery and motion practice as appropriate.
3
For the defendant Betances: obtain dismissal order and costs
Secure issuance of the formal judgment of dismissal and enforcement of the award of costs granted by the appellate court.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The Appellate Division reversed the lower court and dismissed the claims against Aileen Betances because she showed she and her car were not involved in the collision and the plaintiffs did not present contrary evidence.
Who is affected by this decision?: The plaintiffs who sued for personal injuries and the defendant Aileen Betances are directly affected; the case against Betances is dismissed.
What does this mean for the rest of the case?: Only the claims against Betances were dismissed; the remainder of the action against other defendants, if any, can continue.
Can the plaintiffs try to challenge this ruling further?: They could seek leave to appeal to a higher court if permitted, but they would need to show a basis for further review such as an error of law or unsettled question.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Bonilla v Betances - 2026 NY Slip Op 02387

Bonilla v Betances

2026 NY Slip Op 02387

April 22, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Justin A. Bonilla, plaintiff, Joel E. Caraballo, respondent,

Aileen Betances, appellant, et al., defendants.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on April 22, 2026

2024-11569, (Index No. 505124/21)

Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.

William G. Ford

Lourdes M. Ventura

Susan Quirk, JJ.

O'Connor McGuinness Conte Doyle Oleson Watson & Loftus LLP, White Plains, NY (Heather M. Haralambides and Montgomery Effinger of counsel), for appellant.

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 AD3d 709, 709). Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that neither she nor her vehicle was involved in the accident (
see

Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.
, 68 NY2d 320, 324;
see generally

Forte v City of New York
, 237 AD3d 1164, 1165;
Han Hao Huang v "John Doe"
, 169 AD3d 1014, 1015). 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.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph