Kellman v Diaz
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
New York motor vehicle personal injury litigation involving the no-fault serious-injury threshold under Insurance Law § 5102(d) [New York's no-fault statute defining the categories of "serious injury" a plaintiff must show to recover for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident].
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, concluding that the plaintiff did not sustain a statutorily serious injury as a result of the accident.
The Appellate Division reversed the order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Although the defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff lacked a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact through sworn expert opinions showing significant range-of-motion limitations in the lumbar spine and left shoulder over time.
Background
The plaintiff brought an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff did not meet the serious-injury threshold required by New York's no-fault law.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, entered an order on February 21, 2024, granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order and denied the defendants' motion. The court held that the plaintiff's sworn medical proof created triable issues of fact as to serious injury to the lumbar region of his spine and his left shoulder under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that even where defendants satisfy their initial summary judgment burden on serious injury, a plaintiff can defeat dismissal by submitting sworn expert evidence with objective findings, including significant range-of-motion limitations documented over time, sufficient to raise a factual dispute for trial.
Objective, sworn medical evidence showing persistent and significant physical limitations can preclude summary judgment on the serious-injury issue in New York motor vehicle cases.