Appellate Division, Second Department · October 14, 2026 · 2026 NY Slip Op 05928
Bonilla-Acosta v Max Servs. Corp.
Read the official decision: 2026 NY Slip Op 05928
Holding The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The court found that the biomechanical expert’s opinions were insufficient to establish causation because he lacked the qualifications to render medical opinions on causation and improperly rejected the plaintiffs’ deposition testimonies.
The court’s words
The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the accident
2026 NY Slip Op 05928, at the official text
he did not demonstrate that he was qualified to render a medical opinion as to causation
2026 NY Slip Op 05928, at the official text
Bandstra's conclusions were based, in part, on his rejection of the plaintiffs' deposition testimonies as to how their injuries occurred
2026 NY Slip Op 05928, at the official text
| Court | Appellate Division, Second Department |
|---|---|
| Decided | October 14, 2026 |
| Citation | 2026 NY Slip Op 05928 |
| Area of law | Personal Injury and Negligence |
| Week | Week ending October 17, 2026 |
| Official text | Official decision: 2026 NY Slip Op 05928 |
| Publication status | Slip opinions are uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
| Source feed | New York slip opinion page |
| Law Watch record id | 1165 |
Recommended citation
ESQ HQ, New York Law Watch, Bonilla-Acosta v Max Servs. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 05928 (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 14, 2026), https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-05928/
How this record was made
Holding drafted by Law Watch’s in-house model, graded by three reviewers; every quotation verified word for word against the official text.
Read how Law Watch works