Serious Injury Threshold

• October 22, 2026 First Department

  Passenger in a Stop-Sign Crash Wins on Liability, and the Other Driver Is Back in the Case (Williams v Dia, 1st Dept 2026)

  A passenger who could not have caused a crash may win on liability before trial against a driver who was negligent under either version of the events, and a ruling that one driver was at fault does not by itself let the other driver out of the case. Here, the First Department affirmed summary judgment for a passenger against the driver who faced a stop sign, put the other driver back in the case, and held that her physiatrist’s opinion, based in part on MRIs taken after both crashes, raised a question of fact on causation.

  Serious Injury ThresholdVehicle and TrafficSummary JudgmentExpert Witnesses

• October 14, 2026 Second Department

  Car Crash Injury Claims Go Forward: A Biomechanical Engineer’s Report Could Not Replace a Medical Opinion (Bonilla-Acosta v Max Servs. Corp., 2d Dept 2026)

  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.

  Serious Injury ThresholdBiomechanical EngineersVehicle and TrafficSummary Judgment

• October 6, 2026 First Department

  Car Crash Claims Against Two Defendants Dismissed Where the Treating Doctor First Saw the Patient Three Months Later (Gomez v Uber Tech., Inc., 1st Dept 2026)

  In a New York car accident case, an injured person who claims a “serious injury” needs admissible medical proof linking the injuries to the accident, and that proof must answer any defense claim that the injuries are old, degenerative conditions. Here, the First Department affirmed the dismissal of the claims against two of the defendants because the early treatment records were unsworn and uncertified, and the treating doctor first examined the plaintiff three months after the collision, so he had not seen the injuries when they were new.

  Serious Injury ThresholdVehicle and TrafficSummary Judgment

All Decision Day entries

Decision Day summarizes and comments on published court decisions. 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 an entry says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in these cases.