Reyes v Chapman

Holding The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of proving the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The defendants’ expert failed to adequately explain why the plaintiff’s significant limitations in range of motion were voluntary, and the submissions failed to eliminate triable issues regarding causation and the 90/180-day category.

The court’s words

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the accident

2026 NY Slip Op 06156, at the official text

The defendants' expert found significant limitations in the range of motion of the plaintiff's left shoulder and the cervical and thoracolumbar regions of her spine, and the expert failed to adequately explain and substantiate her opinion that the limitations were voluntary

2026 NY Slip Op 06156, at the official text

The defendants' submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the plaintiff's claims, set forth in the bill of particulars, that she sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category

2026 NY Slip Op 06156, at the official text