Southern District of New York Judge Rules that Plaintiff Failed to Meet the Serious Injury Threshold

This matter may be a perfect example of the strategic benefit of litigating in federal court as opposed to New York State courts whenever possible. This case involved a classic type of he said/she said scenario, which revolved around a plaintiff with significant prior accident history and injury pathology. The defense provided standard arguments that the radiological findings showed no acute injury and provided an expert affidavit stating the same. This particular plaintiff had been in five other accidents in the previous six years, and purportedly failed to offer opposing expert findings, which is itself a surprising failure. Noting this, the court found that the defendant had met its burden in proving the plaintiff failed to suffer a causally-related serious injury and found that that plaintiff did not raise any triable issues of fact in opposition. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}