Tapia v. Van Rossum
Docket 2024-10982
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 02431
- Docket
- 2024-10982
Appeal from a Supreme Court order denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew and, upon reargument, adhering to denial of her motion for summary judgment on liability in a personal injury action.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order that denied the plaintiff’s renewed attempt to obtain summary judgment on liability against defendant Olson E. Van Rossum in a pedestrian-vehicle negligence case. The court held the plaintiff failed to show new facts with reasonable justification required for renewal, and on reargument the evidence still did not establish the plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to judgment on liability. Because the plaintiff’s submissions did not prove the defendant breached a duty proximately causing her injuries, the court adhered to the original denial of summary judgment.
Issues Decided
- Whether the plaintiff presented new facts with reasonable justification to warrant leave to renew her motion under CPLR 2221(e).
- Whether the plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of the defendant's liability for the pedestrian-vehicle collision.
Court's Reasoning
The court applied CPLR 2221(e), requiring that a renewal motion be based on new facts and that the movant reasonably justify why they were not previously offered; the plaintiff failed to provide that justification. On the merits, the plaintiff's evidence did not establish that the defendant breached a duty and that such breach was the proximate cause of her injuries, so she did not meet the prima facie burden for summary judgment on liability.
Authorities Cited
- CPLR 2221(e)
- Rodriguez v City of New York31 NY3d 312
- Tsyganash v Auto Mall Fleet Mgt., Inc.163 AD3d 1033
Parties
- Appellant
- Amparo Tapia
- Respondent
- Olson E. Van Rossum
- Respondent
- Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Respondent
- Uber USA, LLC
- Judge
- Betsy Barros, J.P.
- Judge
- Cheryl E. Chambers
- Judge
- Linda Christopher
- Judge
- James P. McCormack
Key Dates
- Index filing (supreme court case)
- 2020-01-01
- Original denial of summary judgment
- 2023-07-21
- Order denying renewal and adhering on reargument
- 2024-09-05
- Appellate Division decision
- 2026-04-22
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult trial counsel
Discuss case posture and strategy for proceeding to trial, including additional discovery, expert proof, and settlement posture now that summary judgment was denied.
- 2
Consider record preservation for appeal
Ensure the trial record preserves all relevant evidentiary and legal issues if the plaintiff intends to seek further appellate review.
- 3
Evaluate grounds for Court of Appeals review
If there are significant legal questions, consider whether to seek permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals and gather necessary materials for any leave application.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the lower court's refusal to let the plaintiff renew her summary judgment motion and agreed that she still failed to prove the defendant was legally liable as a matter of law.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The plaintiff (Amparo Tapia) and the named defendants, including Olson Van Rossum and the Uber companies, are affected because the court denied the plaintiff's effort to obtain a liability ruling before trial.
- What happens next in the case?
- Because summary judgment on liability was denied, the negligence claim will proceed without a pretrial ruling that the defendant is liable; the case may proceed to discovery and ultimately trial unless settled or otherwise resolved.
- Why was the renewal denied?
- Renewal was denied because the plaintiff did not present new facts with a reasonable justification for why those facts were not included in her original motion, as required by the rules for renewal.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- The plaintiff may seek further review, but the next step would be an application to the New York Court of Appeals, which accepts only a limited number of cases; she should consult counsel about the prospects and timing for such an application.
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
Tapia v Van Rossum - 2026 NY Slip Op 02431 Tapia v Van Rossum 2026 NY Slip Op 02431 April 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Amparo Tapia, appellant, v Olson E. Van Rossum, et al., respondents, et al., defendant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 22, 2026 2024-10982, (Index No. 509813/20) Betsy Barros, J.P. Cheryl E. Chambers Linda Christopher James P. McCormack, JJ. Victoria Wickman (Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., Staten Island, NY [Arnold E. DiJoseph III], of counsel), for appellant. Nancy L. Isserlis (The Zweig Law Firm P.C., Cedarhurst, NY [Jonah S. Zweig], of counsel), for respondent Olson E. Van Rossum. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, NY (Patrick J. Lawless and Julia Audibert of counsel), for respondents Uber Technologies, Inc., and Uber USA, LLC. DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Caroline Piela Cohen, J.), dated September 5, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to renew her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant Olson E. Van Rossum, which had been denied in an order of the same court (Delores J. Thomas, J.) dated July 21, 2023, and, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination in the order dated July 21, 2023. ORDERED that the order dated September 5, 2024, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs. The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the defendant Olson E. Van Rossum (hereinafter the defendant) to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained when she was struck by the defendant's vehicle as she was crossing a street. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant. In an order dated July 21, 2023, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff subsequently moved for leave to renew and reargue her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant. In an order dated September 5, 2024, the court denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to renew, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to reargue, and, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination. The plaintiff appeals. A motion for leave to renew shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination ( see CPLR 2221[e][2]) and shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion ( see id. § 2221[e][3]; Groman v Fleyshmakher , 221 AD3d 789, 790). "The new or additional facts either must have not been known to the party seeking renewal or may, in the Supreme Court's discretion, be based on facts known to the party seeking renewal at the time of the original motion" ( Ok Sun Chong v Scheelje , 218 AD3d 691, 692 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Seegopaul v MTA Bus Co. , 210 AD3d 715, 716). Here, the plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable justification for not including the purported new evidence in support of her original motion, and accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to renew ( see Groman v Fleyshmakher , 221 AD3d at 790; Ok Sun Chong v Scheelje , 218 AD3d at 692). Upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant. "A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries" ( Tsyganash v Auto Mall Fleet Mgt., Inc. , 163 AD3d 1033, 1033-1034; see Rodriguez v City of New York , 31 NY3d 312). "To be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of a defendant's liability, a plaintiff does not bear the burden of establishing the absence of his or her own comparative negligence" ( Valerio v City of New York , 238 AD3d 943, 944 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Rodriguez v City of New York , 31 NY3d at 312; Tsyganash v Auto Mall Fleet Mgt., Inc. , 163 AD3d at 1034). Here, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of her motion for summary judgment failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability against the defendant ( see Gomez v City of New York , 186 AD3d 1494, 1495). Accordingly, upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers ( see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr. , 64 NY2d 851, 853). The parties' remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court. BARROS, J.P., CHAMBERS, CHRISTOPHER and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph