Wang v. Desai

Background

Huian Wang sued Avi Desai and Auto Lenders Liquidation Center, Inc., alleging that Desai’s negligence caused a collision between Desai’s car and Wang’s e-bike. Wang alleges that the collision caused physical injury and economic loss. Desai moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which permits judgment without a trial when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The collision occurred at the intersection of Varick Street and King Street on July 17, 2022. Wang testified that he was riding in the leftmost lane, that the traffic light was green, and that Desai’s car struck the e-bike from behind while Wang was in the middle of the intersection. Desai testified that both vehicles had been stopped at a red light, that Wang’s e-bike was between lanes and roughly level with Desai’s passenger-side mirror, and that Wang’s bike moved into the passenger-side front quarter panel after the light turned green.

Arguments and legal standard

Desai argued that he committed no negligent act, that Wang caused the collision, and that Desai did not have enough time to avoid it. Desai also relied on New York’s emergency doctrine, which can protect a person from a finding of negligence when a sudden and unexpected circumstance leaves little or no time for careful thought and the person responds reasonably. Desai further argued that Wang violated New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a) by driving between lanes.

Wang denied changing lanes and maintained that the conflicting testimony should be evaluated by a jury rather than resolved on summary judgment.

Under New York law, a negligence claim requires proof of a duty, a breach of that duty, and a causal connection between the breach and the claimed damages. Drivers must use reasonable care and must see what they reasonably should have seen. New York applies comparative negligence, meaning responsibility may be divided between the parties according to the relative fault and causal importance of their conduct.

Court’s analysis

The court found material factual disputes about the basic events leading to the collision. The parties disagreed about which lanes they occupied, whether Wang was traveling between lanes, and whether Desai’s car rear-ended Wang’s e-bike or Wang’s e-bike struck Desai’s vehicle. The court also found that the submitted photographs did not clearly resolve the nature or cause of the damage.

The court explained that deciding which witness is credible and choosing between conflicting accounts are tasks for a jury, not the court on summary judgment. Viewing reasonable inferences in Wang’s favor as the nonmoving party, the court could not conclude that no reasonable juror could accept Wang’s account and find that Desai breached his duty of care. The same factual disputes prevented the court from resolving comparative negligence or applying the emergency doctrine at this stage.

Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 47. The opinion did not resolve the parties’ disputed accounts of the collision or determine liability.