90/180 discussion – interpretation of Perl.

⚠️ Major Update — June 2026: The 90/180 Category Has Been Eliminated

On May 26, 2026, Governor Hochul signed S9008-C / A10008-C (Part EE), which deleted the 90/180-day category from Insurance Law §5102(d) as part of New York’s auto tort reform package. The reform takes effect immediately and applies to actions and proceedings commenced on or after the effective date — not accidents occurring on or after. That distinction matters enormously: a claim from an earlier accident that has not yet been filed may be governed by the new, narrower threshold. Cases already pending before May 26, 2026 (like the framework discussed in this 2012 post) continue under the old rules, and the Perl/contemporaneous-findings analysis below remains relevant to them.

Full analysis: NY Auto Tort Reform Passed: 90/180 Eliminated, 50% Fault Bar Enacted · Live tracker: NY 50% Fault Bar — Current Status

If you have an unfiled injury claim from an accident before May 26, 2026, get legal advice now — filing timing may determine which threshold rules apply to your case. Call (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.

Last reviewed: June 2026

Crawford-Reese v Woodard, 2012 NY Slip Op 03502 (3d Dept. 2012)

Defendant’s evidence on the 90/180 threshold motion

Interesting discussion on this 5102(d) topic. The evidence that Defendant presented in his 90/180 threshold motion:

The police report reflects that no injuries were reported at the accident scene and, although plaintiff sought medical treatment at a hospital emergency room eight days later complaining of pain in her chest, neck, shoulder and right knee, radiology reports from the hospital indicate calcification and arthritic changes, with no acute fractures or malalignment. Thereafter, several times over the next few months, plaintiff sought medical treatment for various complaints, including chest, head, neck, arm, hip and knee pain, but no limitation of range of motion was documented in the months following her accident, nor were there any recommendations for limitations on plaintiff’s work or activities. Diagnoses by various physicians who examined plaintiff during this period included muscle strain, tendinitis, mild arthritis, degenerative arthritis and obesity . Two independent medical examinations conducted on plaintiff by different doctors in 2007 found no disabilities that would limit her work status or daily activities. Significantly, plaintiff could not remember whether she had been working at the time of the accident or enrolled as a student but, in any event, no evidence was submitted demonstrating that plaintiff missed any time from work or classes as a result of her injuries”

Quantitative testing years after the accident under Perl

  There was insufficient evidence in Plaintiff’s answering papers. But the conclusion of law is interesting:

“Further, although quantitative testing of an injury made years after an accident may be relevant to ascertain the severity of a permanent injury suffered by a plaintiff (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 217 ), contemporaneous findings of injury are highly relevant to causation (see id. at 218) and to establishing the 90/180-day category of serious injury (see Houston v Hofmann, 75 AD3d at 1049; Tuna v Babendererde, 32 AD3d 574, 577 ).”

Why contemporaneous findings matter to causation and 90/180

The contemporaneous hurdle that was determined to be an issue of in Perl came back on this case as a barrier as a matter of law.

Related Articles

• Critical mistakes that can destroy your 5102(d) case
• When IME doctors must explain why range of motion is self-restricted
• Understanding permanent consequential vs. significant limitation categories
• How suboptimal effort can derail serious injury threshold claims
• A serious-injury threshold reversal in the Second Department
• Personal Injury

Legal Update (June 2026): The 90/180-day category discussed in this post was eliminated from Insurance Law §5102(d) by the May 26, 2026 auto tort reform (S9008-C / A10008-C, Part EE) for actions commenced on or after the effective date. The Perl contemporaneous-findings analysis above remains governing law for cases commenced before that date and continues to inform causation arguments under the surviving §5102(d) categories. See our full breakdown of the 2026 reform and the current-status tracker.