Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing 5102(d) issues coverage, with 89 published articles analyzing 5102(d) issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
In New York personal injury litigation, defendants frequently rely on a plaintiff’s own medical records to argue that injuries don’t meet the “serious injury” threshold required under Insurance Law § 5102(d). This strategy can be highly effective when the records show minimal or routine findings. However, as demonstrated in this 2010 case, defendants must exercise extreme caution when selecting which medical documents to submit as evidence.
The case of Abdalla v Mazl Taxi, Inc. serves as a stark reminder that a plaintiff’s own hospital records can sometimes work against the defense’s interests. When medical records contain evidence of significant injuries or limitations, using them as defense exhibits can actually help establish the plaintiff’s case rather than undermine it.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Abdalla v Mazl Taxi, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 06071 (2d Dept. 2010)
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
There is nothing wrong with relying on a party’s opponents to help establish your prima facie defense that threshold was not breached or a service lacked medical utility. But, as this case shows, watch what you annex to your motions, lest you wish to lose right out of the gate.
“The defendants, in support of their motion, relied on some of the plaintiff’s own medical reports. One such report was that of the plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Joyce Goldenberg, which revealed the existence of a significant limitation in the plaintiff’s right knee flexion (see Guerrero v Bernstein, 57 AD3d 845; Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d 515). The other was an operative report of the plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Richard Seldes, which revealed, inter alia, the existence of a tear in the posterior horn of the medial meniscus in the right knee. Since the defendants did not meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact”
Can you say sianara?
Key Takeaway
Defense attorneys must thoroughly review all medical records before submitting them as evidence in threshold motions. Even though using a plaintiff’s own medical records is a valid strategy, records that document significant limitations or surgical findings can establish rather than defeat serious injury claims. Understanding what constitutes objective signs of continuing disability is crucial for effective case evaluation and motion practice.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post, New York courts have continued to refine the standards for evaluating “serious injury” threshold motions under Insurance Law § 5102(d), and there have been subsequent appellate decisions that may affect how medical records are evaluated in summary judgment proceedings. Practitioners should verify current case law interpretations and any potential amendments to threshold analysis standards when crafting litigation strategy around plaintiff medical records.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More 5102(d) issues Analysis
Significant limitation v. permanent consequential, again
New York court ruling creates apparent contradiction in no-fault threshold requirements for significant limitation vs. permanent consequential limitation cases.
May 22, 2021
NY Serious Injury Threshold: When Suboptimal Effort Derails Personal Injury Cases
Learn how NY's serious injury threshold works and why suboptimal effort can destroy your personal injury case. Expert Long Island attorney guidance.
Nov 25, 2019
Range of motion measurements do not require an instrument
New York court clarifies that orthopedic surgeons can measure range of motion without instruments for no-fault insurance threshold determinations.
Jun 25, 2013
Strategic MRI Timing in Personal Injury Cases: Why Later Can Be Better
Expert analysis of strategic MRI timing in NY personal injury cases. Learn why delayed imaging can be better. Long Island & NYC attorneys. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 4, 2011
Another must read in the battle involving “significant limitation” and “permanent consequential”
Tejada v LKQ case analysis: Court finds triable issue for significant limitation but not permanent consequential limitation in lumbar spine injury claim.
Nov 14, 2018
Mild, minor, slight
New York Court of Appeals case analysis on serious injury threshold: when mild deficits and full range of motion doom personal injury claims under Insurance Law 5102(d).
Jun 29, 2017Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a 5102(d) issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
