Automobile Liability

In a case involving injuries related to a motor vehicle accident, the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgement on the issue of liability. Wilson v. Derosena, 2026 NY Slip Op 31906(U) (Sup. Ct.).

In support of their motion for summary judgement, defendants argued that the plaintiff did not sustain a ‘serious injury’ under Insurance Law § 5102(d). Defendants contended that the plaintiffs injuries were pre-existing and not causally related to the accident, citing medical reports and deposition testimony. Plaintiff claimed injuries to his lumbar and cervical spine, including disc herniation, radiculopathy, and disc desiccation, but did not undergo surgery, which he argued met the ‘serious injury’ threshold. Under Insurance Law § 5102(d), a 'serious injury' includes: (a) permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member, (b) significant limitation of use of a body function or system, or (c) a medically determined injury or impairment preventing the injured person from performing usual activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the injury. The court found that defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'serious injury' under the permanent consequential limitation, significant limitation, and 90/180-day categories, based on medical reports and deposition testimony. However, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding injuries to his cervical spine, supported by medical records, expert testimony, and range of motion impairments. The court noted that the defense expert orthopedist acknowledged the cervical injuries were causally related to the accident, shifting the burden to defendants to disprove causation, which they failed to do. On the issue of liability, the court determined that defendant Gena Derosena violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1141 and 1143 by failing to yield the right of way and making an improper left turn. The court rejected the defendants' argument of comparative negligence, finding no evidence that plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care.