Alam v. Priority One Ambulance, Inc.
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Motor vehicle personal injury litigation involving New York's No-Fault serious injury threshold under Insurance Law § 5102(d) [defining "serious injury" for New York automobile accident claims].
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not suffer a statutorily serious injury.
The Appellate Division reversed that order and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact because neither he nor his physicians provided a reasonable explanation for a lengthy treatment gap from January 2019 to March 2021. The court also found no evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim that he stopped treatment because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and no explanation for the pre-pandemic portion of the gap.
Background
Masudul Alam sued 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 sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) [defining "serious injury" for New York automobile accident claims].
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendants' summary judgment motion in an order dated January 21, 2025, allowing the personal injury action to proceed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order, held that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court relied on the unexplained gap in treatment from January 2019 to March 2021 and rejected the plaintiff's unsupported reliance on the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that, in New York No-Fault cases, a plaintiff opposing summary judgment on serious injury must adequately explain any significant interruption in medical treatment. Unsupported assertions that treatment ceased because of the COVID-19 pandemic are insufficient, especially where part of the gap predates the pandemic.
A plaintiff claiming serious injury in an automobile case must present medical proof and a reasonable, evidence-based explanation for any long treatment gap; otherwise, the claim may be dismissed on summary judgment.