We return to a central question concerning the "sole proximat­e cause" defense, one that has puzzled the bar for 20 years. Now, with last year's Court of Appeals decision in Bonczar v. American Multi-Cinema, 38 NY3d 1023 [2022] … the issue still remains completely unresolved since the Bonczar court did not reach it.

However, Bonczar presents a new issue that arises in many construction litigation cases but is far broader than construction litigation, and far broader than personal injury litigation. Really, the issue can arise in any case in which a party moves for dismissal or summary judgment and fails to obtain that relief.

Assuming that the unsuccessful movant feels the ruling was erroneous and that he or she deserves to prevail as a matter of law, the tactical question is whether the movant should (a) take an interlocutory appeal and obtain appellate review of the ruling in advance of the trial, or (b) wait until after trial and then, in the event the jury's verdict does not moot the prior ruling, raise the summary judgment issues, along with any issues that may have arisen during the trial, on appeal from the final judgment.