This page summarizes and comments on a published court decision. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Unless this page says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in this case.
Bottom line
In a New York car accident case, a defendant that asks the court to dismiss an injury claim because there was no “serious injury” must first make that showing with competent medical evidence. Here, the Second Department affirmed the denial of two defendants’ motion, holding that their biomechanical engineer could speak to the forces in the crash but did not show he was qualified to give a medical opinion on whether the accident caused the injuries.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, Second Department
- Decided
- October 14, 2026
- Case
- Bonilla-Acosta v Max Servs. Corp.
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 05928
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
Two people, Francis Bonilla-Acosta and Dinaili Andujar-Martinez, alleged that they were injured in a motor vehicle accident. Two of the defendants, Max Services Corp. and Marco Miranda, moved for summary judgment, arguing that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). They relied in part on reports of a biomechanical engineer, who concluded that the accident did not generate enough force to cause the claimed injuries, including injuries to both plaintiffs’ necks and lower backs. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the motion, and those defendants appealed.
The holding
The Second Department affirmed. It held that the defendants “did not submit competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie,” that either plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation categories (2026 NY Slip Op 05928, *1). The engineer’s opinions rested in part on his own conclusion, from the plaintiffs’ medical records, that their neck and back injuries were degenerative. Although he showed he was qualified to say “whether the accident could have generated enough force to cause the plaintiff[s’] injuries” (id. at *2, quoting Vasquez v Coastal Charter Serv. Corp.), “he did not demonstrate that he was qualified to render a medical opinion as to causation” (id.). His conclusions also rested in part “on his rejection of the plaintiffs’ deposition testimonies as to how their injuries occurred” (id.). The court added that the defendants failed to make their showing under “the 90/180-day category of the version of Insurance Law § 5102(d) in effect at the time the plaintiffs commenced this action” (id.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the Court of Appeals’ decisions in Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys. (98 NY2d 345) and Gaddy v Eyler (79 NY2d 955), and the court’s earlier decision in Vasquez v Coastal Charter Serv. Corp. (240 AD3d 822).
What it means
- In many New York car accident cases, an injured person can recover for pain and suffering only by showing a “serious injury” as the Insurance Law defines it.
- A defendant moving to dismiss because the injured person did not meet that threshold must make the first showing, with competent medical evidence. These defendants did not.
- A biomechanical engineer may be qualified to say how much force a crash produced, but here that did not qualify him to give a medical opinion on what caused the injuries.
- The court applied the 90/180-day category as it read when this action was commenced. Under the 2026 changes, that category was deleted for actions commenced on or after May 26, 2026 (see our post on New York’s 2026 changes for motor vehicle injury cases).
- The decision does not decide fault or damages.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
We note that this decision is the other side of our entry on Gomez v Uber (First Department, October 6). There, a defense radiologist concluded that the injuries were preexisting and degenerative, the plaintiff’s proof did not raise an issue of fact, and the claims against the two defendants who moved were dismissed. Here, the defense relied on a biomechanical engineer, who had not shown he could give a medical opinion on that question. In our experience, defendants in car accident cases often hire biomechanical engineers to say that a crash was too minor to cause the injuries claimed, and those reports too often reach past engineering into medicine. In our view, the court’s reasoning is sound: an engineer may be able to say how hard two cars hit, but it takes a doctor to say what that did to someone’s spine. When an engineer reads medical records and decides that an injury is degenerative, he is no longer speaking as an engineer. The court also noted that his conclusions rested in part on rejecting the plaintiffs’ own deposition testimony about how they were hurt. We believe two lessons follow. 1. After a crash, follow your doctor’s advice and tell your doctors exactly how you were hurt. 2. Lawyers should check whether each defense expert is qualified to give each opinion in the report, and challenge any opinion that goes beyond the expert’s field. An expert’s title does not answer every question.
Topics
Court: Second Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Insurance Law § 5102(d). Result: affirmed.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided October 14, 2026. Posted October 14, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.