Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

In, Brown v. Calisi, a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, Tonya Brown appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, which granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Domenic Calisi and Donatella Calisi. The defendants had moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff did not sustain a "serious injury" as defined under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion, and the plaintiff appealed. So, how “serious” does Plaintiff’s injury have to be in order to have a valid claim? Let’s look at the law.

New York Insurance Law § 5102(d) defines a “serious injury” as one that results in specific, significant impairments or limitations. This statute is critical in personal injury cases involving motor vehicle accidents, as it sets the threshold that must be met for a plaintiff to recover damages for pain and suffering. Under this law, a “serious injury” includes:

-        Death

-        Dismemberment

-        Significant disfigurement

-        Fracture

-        Loss of a fetus

-        Permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function, or system

-        Permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member

-        Significant limitation of use of a body function or system

-        A medically determined injury or impairment that prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts that constitute their usual and customary daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days immediately following the injury

The defendants successfully met their burden of proof by providing competent medical evidence that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries to her left shoulder and lumbar spine did not meet the “serious injury” threshold under the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d). Additionally, the defendants demonstrated that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of the same statute. In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact to refute the defendants’ claims.

As a result, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants. The order was affirmed by the appellate court. As unfortunate as it is for the Plaintiff, her injuries were not ‘serious’ enough to assert a claim for personal injuries against Defendants.