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.
New York’s no-fault insurance system requires injured parties to meet specific thresholds before pursuing claims for pain and suffering damages. Under Insurance Law Section 5102(d), plaintiffs must demonstrate either a “permanent consequential limitation” or a “significant limitation” of a bodily function, or alternatively, that they were prevented from performing substantially all daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days following an accident (the “90/180 category”).
When courts analyze these threshold requirements, they sometimes reach seemingly contradictory conclusions that highlight the complexities within the no-fault framework. Defense attorneys who regularly handle personal injury cases often encounter situations where the legal reasoning appears to conflict with the underlying medical realities, particularly when examining objective signs of continuing disability.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
I am putting by Bodily Injury hat on this one. There are few issues in 5102(d) land that intrigue me as much as the newest prima facie jurisprudence.
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.
For instance, is it logical for an appellate court to knock out the permanent consequential and significant limitation categories, find a triable issue of fact on 90/180 and then state the following: “We note that if plaintiff ultimately prevails on her 90/180-day claim, she will be ‘entitled to recover damages that justly and fairly compensate … her for all injuries proximately caused by the accident” (Rubin v SMS Taxi Corp., 71 AD3d 548, 549-550 ; see Delgado v Papert Tr., Inc., 93 AD3d 457 ).’”
Think about how ridiculous this sounds. A court says you have no permanent or significant injuries, yet allows a jury to award damages on all injuries under the non-permanent 90/180 threshold category? I know I am a defense attorney and I try these cases so perhaps I am biased. Still, does this make sense?
I think Article 51 of the Insurance Law has spawned a level and degree of insanity that can hardly be explained.
Key Takeaway
This case illustrates a fundamental inconsistency in New York’s no-fault system: courts can simultaneously find that a plaintiff lacks permanent or significant injuries while still permitting recovery for “all injuries” under the 90/180 day category. This paradox demonstrates how the threshold requirements can sometimes undermine their own logical foundation, creating opportunities for outcomes that seem to contradict the medical findings.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 analysis, New York courts have continued to refine the interpretation of Insurance Law Section 5102(d) threshold requirements, and there may have been significant developments in the jurisprudence surrounding 90/180 day claims and their relationship to permanent consequential limitation findings. Practitioners should verify current case law interpretations and any potential amendments to the no-fault threshold standards, as appellate decisions over the past decade may have clarified or modified the analytical framework discussed in this post.
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
A signifcant knee surgery does not defeat the 5102(d) serious injury threshold
Court rules knee surgery including ACL reconstruction doesn't meet NY serious injury threshold when medical records show full strength and range of motion post-surgery.
Jul 7, 2010
20% deficit is a serious injury
Court ruling establishes that a 20% deficit in cervical spine flexion constitutes a serious injury under New York's no-fault insurance threshold requirements.
Oct 31, 2018
SUM jury verdict sustained
Court upholds jury verdict denying serious injury claim despite plaintiff's shoulder surgery and medical testimony in GEICO insurance dispute.
Dec 15, 2016
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, 2013Was 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.
