Skip to main content
Summary judgment in comparative negligence case – Old First Department Standard now controls
Summary Judgment Issues

Summary judgment in comparative negligence case – Old First Department Standard now controls

By Jason Tenenbaum 2 min read

Key Takeaway

First Department ruling establishes new standard for summary judgment in comparative negligence cases, eliminating plaintiff's burden to prove absence of own fault.

This article is part of our ongoing summary judgment issues coverage, with 43 published articles analyzing summary judgment issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.

Rodriguez v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 02287 (2018)

(1)  “The motion for summary judgment must also “show that there is no defense to the cause of action” (id.). Further, subsection of the same section sets forth the procedure for obtaining partial summary judgment and states that “f it appears that the only triable issues of fact arising on a motion for summary judgment relate to the amount or extent of damages … the court may, when appropriate for the expeditious disposition of the controversy, order an immediate trial of such issues of fact raised by the motion”

(2) “Defendant’s attempts to rely on CPLR 3212’s plain language in support of its preferred approach are also unavailing. Specifically, defendant points to CPLR 3212(b), which provides; “ motion for summary judgment shall … show that there is no defense to the cause of action.” Defendant’s approach would have us consider comparative fault a defense. But, comparative negligence is not a defense to the cause of action of negligence, because it is not a defense to any element (duty, breach, causation) of plaintiff’s prima facie cause of action for negligence, and as CPLR 1411 plainly states, is not a bar to plaintiff’s recovery, but rather a diminishment of the amount of damages.”

(3)”To be entitled to partial summary judgment a plaintiff does not bear the double burden of establishing a prima facie case of defendant’s liability and the absence of his or her own comparative fault. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of issues raised but not determined on the appeal to that court and the certified question answered in the negative.”

Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win

Does this apply to your situation?

Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.

Now, when you move for summary judgment as a plaintiff, you need to: (1) Move for summary judgment in liability; and (2) To dismiss the affirmative defense of comparative negligence.

Otherwise, does summary judgment “on liability” really mean just that?


Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2018 decision analyzing CPLR 3212 and 1411 in comparative negligence contexts, there may have been subsequent amendments to summary judgment procedures or comparative fault standards through legislative action or appellate decisions. Practitioners should verify current provisions of CPLR 3212 and any recent First Department or Court of Appeals precedent regarding partial summary judgment standards in comparative negligence cases.

Legal Context

Why This Matters for Your Case

New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,600 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.

About This Topic

Summary Judgment Practice in New York

Summary judgment under CPLR 3212 is often the decisive motion in no-fault and personal injury litigation. The movant must establish a prima facie case through admissible evidence, and the opponent must then raise a triable issue of fact. The timing of motions, the sufficiency of evidence, and the court's discretion in evaluating submissions are all heavily litigated. These articles provide detailed analysis of summary judgment standards and the strategic considerations that determine outcomes.

43 published articles in Summary Judgment Issues

Keep Reading

More Summary Judgment Issues Analysis

Evidence

CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation

New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.

Feb 18, 2026
Summary Judgment Issues

Understanding CPLR 3212(a): Critical Timing Rules for Summary Judgment Motions in New York

Metro Psychological separates timely service from sufficient proof. Check the trial notice, court deadline, mailing date and good cause for delay.

Oct 22, 2019
Summary Judgment Issues

Amended cross-motion (no fee necessary)

New York court ruling clarifies that amended cross-motions don't require additional filing fees under CPLR 8020, providing relief from mounting court costs.

Dec 4, 2015
Procedural Issues

Affirmative Defenses in New York: When a Pleaded Defense Is Not an Admission

Affirmative defenses in New York: Hollinden v City of New York holds a conditionally pleaded defense is not a binding admission for summary judgment.

Aug 27, 2013
5102(d) issues

The destruction of peer hearsay: It is not hearsay – and much more

Examining peer hearsay exceptions in NY no-fault cases, medical record admissibility, and verification procedures in Urban Radiology v Tri-State Consumer.

Jun 10, 2010
Procedural Issues

Understanding CPLR 3212(g): When Summary Judgment Relief Becomes Improper

B.Y. rejected a stand-alone attempt to establish a prima facie case. Distinguish partial judgment, facts fixed for trial and unavailable discovery.

Feb 6, 2010
View all Summary Judgment Issues articles

Was this article helpful?

Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.

New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.

If you need legal help with a summary judgment issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Part of the Summary Judgment (CPLR 3212) archive in the New York Civil Procedure section of the New York Legal Encyclopedia.

Jason Tenenbaum, Personal Injury Attorney serving Long Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County

Written By

Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.

Jason Tenenbaum is a personal injury attorney serving Long Island, Nassau & Suffolk Counties, and New York City. Admitted to practice in NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI, and Federal courts, Jason is one of the few attorneys who writes his own appeals and tries his own cases. Since 2008, he has authored more than 2,600 articles on no-fault insurance law, personal injury, and employment law — a resource other attorneys rely on to stay current on New York appellate decisions.

Education
Syracuse University College of Law
Experience
24+ Years
Articles
2,600+ Published
Licensed In
6 States + Federal

Free Consultation — No Upfront Fees

Injured on Long Island?
We Fight for What You Deserve.

Serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of New York City. You pay nothing unless we win.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has been fighting for the rights of injured New Yorkers since 2002. With over 24 years of experience handling personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation cases, Jason Tenenbaum brings the legal knowledge and courtroom experience your case demands. Every consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay absolutely nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Available 24/7  ·  No fees unless you win  ·  Serving Long Island & NYC

Injured? Don't Wait.

Get Your Free Case Review Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Free Consultation Free Case Review