Mendez v. Federal 53 Inc.
Docket Index No. 800751/22|Appeal No. 6441-6441A|Case No. 2024-03696|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02454
- Docket numbers
- Index No800751/22Appeal No6441-6441ACase No2024-03696
Appeal from denial of summary judgment in a personal-injury action arising from a vehicle collision involving a tow truck
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court, Bronx County's denial of defendant Federal 53 Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff alleged his vehicle struck a tow truck's detached front bumper; Federal 53 argued plaintiff was solely at fault because the tow truck was legally stopped. The appellate court found Federal 53 did not eliminate material factual issues, pointing to authenticated photographs that raised questions whether the tow truck's bumper protruded into the plaintiff's lane in violation of a local regulation and whether that condition proximately caused the collision. A later order granting leave to reargue was dismissed as academic.
Issues Decided
- Whether defendant Federal 53 established entitlement to summary judgment by proving it bore no fault for the collision
- Whether authenticated photographs create a triable issue that the tow truck's detached bumper protruded into the plaintiff's lane in violation of 34 RCNY 4-08(k)(3)
- Whether any negligent condition of the tow truck was a proximate cause of the collision
Court's Reasoning
The court held that Federal 53 failed to eliminate all material issues of fact necessary for summary judgment. Plaintiff's authenticated photographs raised questions about whether the tow truck's detached bumper extended into the lane of travel, potentially violating 34 RCNY 4-08(k)(3). Because those factual disputes bear on negligence and proximate cause, they preclude dismissal as a matter of law.
Authorities Cited
- 34 RCNY 4-08(k)(3)
- Cordova v 653 Eleventh Ave. LLC190 AD3d 637 (1st Dept 2021)
- McLean v Ripoli157 AD3d 604 (1st Dept 2018)
- Bertrand v Vingan249 AD2d 13 (1st Dept 1998)
Parties
- Plaintiff
- Jeffrey Mendez
- Defendant
- Federal 53 Inc.
- Defendant
- John Doe
- Attorney
- Iryna S. Krauchanka (Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley) - for appellant
- Attorney
- Steven R. Widom (The Yankowitz Law Firm, P.C.) - for respondent
- Judge
- Bianka Perez (Supreme Court, Bronx County)
- Judge
- Scarpulla, J.P.
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-23
- Original Supreme Court order denying summary judgment
- 2023-09-27
- Order granting leave to reargue
- 2026-01-14
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Continue litigation
Prepare for forthcoming discovery and pretrial proceedings because the denial of summary judgment leaves factual issues to be resolved at trial or through further motion practice.
- 2
Assess grounds for further appeal
Defendant should consult counsel about whether to seek further appellate review (e.g., leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals) and evaluate preservation of issues and timing.
- 3
Develop factual record
Both parties should collect and preserve evidence—photographs, vehicle inspection records, witness statements, and expert analysis—focused on whether the bumper protruded and caused the crash.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of Federal 53's motion to dismiss the case at the summary judgment stage, meaning the case will continue rather than being thrown out now.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The parties to the case—plaintiff Jeffrey Mendez and defendant Federal 53 Inc.—are directly affected; the ruling preserves the plaintiff's claims for further proceedings.
- Why wasn't the defendant's summary judgment granted?
- Because authenticated photographs and other evidence raised factual disputes about whether the tow truck's bumper protruded into the plaintiff's lane and whether that contributed to the collision, precluding dismissal as a matter of law.
- What happens next in the case?
- The case remains active and will proceed to further litigation, which may include discovery, pretrial motion practice, and possibly a trial unless resolved earlier.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Yes; the defendant may seek further appellate review, such as an application to the Court of Appeals, subject to applicable procedural rules and time limits.
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
Mendez v Federal 53 Inc. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02454 Mendez v Federal 53 Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 02454 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Jeffrey Mendez, Plaintiff-Respondent, v Federal 53 Inc., Defendant-Appellant, John Doe etc., Defendant. Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026 Index No. 800751/22|Appeal No. 6441-6441A|Case No. 2024-03696| Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Shulman, Chan, JJ. Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York (Iryna S. Krauchanka of counsel), for appellant. The Yankowitz Law Firm, P.C., Great Neck (Steven R. Widom of counsel), for respondent. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bianka Perez, J.), entered on or about September 27, 2023, which denied defendant Federal 53 Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 14, 2026, brought up for review pursuant to CPLR 5517(b) by the appeal from the aforementioned order, which granted Federal 53's motion for leave to reargue and, upon reargument, adhered to the prior decision, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic. Plaintiff alleges that he was injured when the detached front bumper of defendants' tow truck came into contact with his vehicle as he drove on a city roadway. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the collision because his moving vehicle struck the tow truck as the latter was legally stopped and parked. Initially, although Supreme Court's September 27, 2023 order denied defendants' joint motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety, only that portion of the motion pertaining to Federal 53 is properly before us under the notice of appeal, which states that this appeal is from only the parts of the order that aggrieve Federal 53. Thus, we do not consider the contentions raised in the opening brief to the extent they advance arguments on behalf of the John Doe defendant. As to the merits, Federal 53 failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not bear any fault for the collision, and thus did not eliminate all material issues of fact. Plaintiff's photographs, which were sufficiently authenticated, present issues of fact as to whether Federal 53 negligently allowed the detached front bumper of its tow truck to protrude into the plaintiff's lane of travel in violation of 34 RCNY 4-08(k)(3), and if so, whether that negligent act was a proximate cause of the collision ( see Cordova v 653 Eleventh Ave. LLC. , 190 AD3d 637, 638 [1st Dept 2021]; compare Bertrand v Vingan , 249 AD2d 13, 13 [1st Dept 1998] with McLean v Ripoli , 157 AD3d 604, 605 [1st Dept 2018]). We have considered Federal 53's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 23, 2026