Key Takeaway
Vargas v Marte: the First Department's knee-causation ruling, the before-and-after MRI comparison, and limits of the surviving claim.
This article is part of our ongoing 5102(d) issues coverage, with 256 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.
The old knee injury was part of the medical explanation in Vargas v Marte. The surgeon compared the earlier and later MRIs and explained why the new symptoms were accident-related.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Legal Update (September 2026): Laws of 2026, chapter 58, Part EE sections 1 and 4 removed the 90/180-day serious-injury category for actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026; the ruling below applied the earlier statute.
What survived the motion
In Vargas v Marte, 123 AD3d 471 (1st Dept 2014), decided December 9, 2014, the First Department allowed the serious-injury claim to continue. The defense had supported its motion with normal motion findings and a radiologist’s opinion that the knee symptoms were pre-existing.
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.
The plaintiff answered with measured restrictions and reasoned medical opinions. His surgeon acknowledged the earlier injury and age-related degeneration, reviewed MRIs from before and after the accident, and connected the meniscal tears to the accident using the symptom history. That reasoning, together with the examination findings, raised a factual issue.
The order had other parts: the court dismissed the property-damage claim and denied the plaintiff’s request for judgment on liability because the accounts of the collision conflicted. A surviving injury claim was not a finding that the defendant caused the crash.
What the MRI question leaves open
Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208 (2011) rejected a universal demand for contemporaneous numerical motion measurements. It did not decide that relevant imaging can always be omitted. Vargas actually involved a before-and-after MRI comparison; Jason’s question below considers a different record. Under CPLR 3212(b), the sufficiency of that different record would need its own assessment.
Jason’s original comment
Jason’s original 2014 question follows. Vargas decided a record containing both sets of MRIs; the answer to his hypothetical remains record-specific.
Assuming you do not have the MRI’s, would the remainder of the passage be sufficient to defeat summary judgment? Unsure – but probably yes in light of Perl.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
See the pre-existing injury and causation encyclopedia hub for the topic’s case directory and statutory update.
- Russell: unchanged prior findings and unsupported aggravation
- Sanchez: different causation results for different body parts
- Campbell: unanswered shoulder findings and treatment cessation
- McDonald: speculative causal proof after a jury verdict
For review of a particular injury or no-fault dispute, contact the office.
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
IME no-show is a policy defense triggering the hourly attorney fee provision
Learn how IME no-show defenses trigger hourly attorney fee provisions in NY no-fault insurance. Court rules failure to attend IME is policy defense.
May 22, 2021
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
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
MVAIC is at it again
New York appellate court ruling reveals ongoing jurisdictional split over MVAIC exhaustion requirements in no-fault insurance coverage disputes.
Oct 17, 2019
The deemer acts to dismiss complaint against MVAIC
NY deemer statute allows courts to dismiss complaints against MVAIC when insurance coverage may be deemed to exist despite policy disclaimers under Insurance Law sections 370 and...
Jan 24, 2017
Verdict sustaining that the loss was intentional sustained
NY court upholds jury verdict finding motor vehicle collision was intentionally caused, denying plaintiff's motion for judgment as matter of law in no-fault case.
Apr 19, 2014Was 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.
