Has New York’s Comparative Fault Rendered Rodriguez Obsolete? Challenging Liability Summary Judgment in Motor Vehicle Cases

Almost a decade ago, in Rodriguez v. City of New York, 31 N.Y.3d 312, 323 (2018), in a case arising out of a motor vehicle accident, the Court of Appeals held that "to obtain partial summary judgment on defendant's liability he does not have to demonstrate the absence of his own comparative fault.”

In other words, the court held that no matter how much fault the plaintiff bore for the accident—even if the evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff could be found 99.9% at fault for the accident—the plaintiff could still obtain summary judgment on liability against the defendant.

Of course, one of the many problems with this ruling was that it immediately triggered New York's 9% statutory interest "penalty," which began running the day summary judgment was awarded on any future damages verdict. If the plaintiff ultimately was awarded a USD 10 million verdict on April 1, 2026, he is then entitled to three years of 9% interest (or USD 2.7 million) on that USD 10 million if he won summary judgment on April 1, 2026.

But Rodriguez should no longer be considered good law in motor vehicle accident cases where there is evidence of the plaintiff's comparative fault, and we need to start pushing that argument immediately. On May 26, 2026, Governor Hochul signed into law the amendment to CPLR 1411 (subsection (b)), which holds that a plaintiff can no longer recover in a personal injury action—he or she is nonsuited—if the jury finds the plaintiff 51% or more at fault for the accident.

Rodriguez's holding is no longer legally tenable in motor vehicle accident cases where there is evidence of the plaintiff's comparative fault. The plaintiff should not be awarded summary judgment or receive statutory interest on any future damages verdict when the fact finder has not decided whether he or she is 51% or more at fault for the accident. This argument should be made in every summary judgment motion sequence going forward to fight off the draconian statutory interest penalty.

Finally, as the Second Department just reaffirmed this month (link), the court can decide the plaintiff's comparative fault as a matter of law when the plaintiff seeks to dismiss that affirmative defense, and the plaintiff waives any admissibility objections to evidence regarding his or her comparative fault when he or she submits that evidence.