Key Takeaway
Jones v MTA Bus Co. dismissed injury claims on its medical record. The 2014 First Department ruling did not create a universal five-month rule.
This article is part of our ongoing causation coverage, with 178 published articles analyzing causation 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.
Jones v MTA Bus Co., 123 AD3d 614 (2014) was a First Department decision, not a Court of Appeals ruling. The court ordered dismissal after the defendants’ medical showing went unanswered on causation and serious injury.
Legal Update (September 2026): Chapter 58 of 2026, Part EE §§ 1 and 4 removed the 90/180-day serious-injury category for actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026; the historical decision discussed here predates that amendment.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
More than a five-month delay
The plaintiff alleged injury when bus doors closed on her. For the psychiatric and brain claims, the defense relied on records of pre-existing conditions and a neuropsychologist’s assessment. The plaintiff’s physician did not address that history or give a causal opinion connecting those conditions to this incident.
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 testified that her eye stopped hurting within weeks. For other claimed injuries, the hospital and treatment records showed no complaints until about five months later. The opposition supplied neither adequate objective evidence nor a causal explanation.
Jason’s original note singled out the delay. The full opinion explains why the claim failed on this record. It does not establish a five-month filing deadline, a rule that every treatment interruption defeats a claim, or a reason to obtain unnecessary treatment solely to create litigation records.
Jason’s original 2014 commentary
Jason’s December 2014 observation is preserved below. The discussion above includes the parts of the opinion his short excerpt did not address.
There was a bit more to the case but this is the snippet that has relevance to me.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the pre-existing injuries and causation topic hub.
- Khanfour: reconcile earlier and later range-of-motion findings
- Shah: the defense expert’s unexplained post-accident ROM loss
- Malloy: medical reasons connecting a knee injury to the collision
- Donoso: missing causal proof at trial, distinguished from stipulated no-fault records
For review of a particular dispute, contact the firm.
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.
About This Topic
Causation in New York Personal Injury & No-Fault Law
Causation — proving that the defendant's negligence or the accident caused the plaintiff's injuries — is an essential element of every personal injury and no-fault claim. New York courts distinguish between proximate cause, intervening causes, and pre-existing conditions that may have been aggravated by an accident. The legal standards for establishing causation through medical evidence and the defenses available to challenge causal connection are analyzed in depth across these articles.
178 published articles in Causation
Keep Reading
More Causation 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
Contractual deemer
New York courts examine when out-of-state insurers can avoid no-fault coverage obligations through contractual deemer provisions and policy language analysis.
Apr 24, 2021
Understanding Medical Causation in New York Personal Injury Cases: Expert Analysis Requirements
Black v Gordon: why an unexplained aggravation opinion failed to answer disc degeneration, bony growth and missing early cervical complaints.
Jun 2, 2019
Supreme Court got it wrong but I saw a tactical error in the EUO
Supreme Court's ruling in State Farm v Thompson highlights strategic missteps in no-fault insurance declaratory judgment cases involving examination under oath procedures.
Sep 16, 2016
Fraudulent procurement and preclusuion
Great Health Care v Hanover: a garaging-fraud defense failed without a timely denial. The provider won summary judgment; Prompt Medical confirms preclusion.
Mar 18, 2014
Lack of causal relationship motion denied based upon evidence that the injured person was "asymptomatic" prior to the motor vehicle accident
Court denies lack of causal relationship motion when plaintiff was asymptomatic before motor vehicle accident, despite prior injuries and degenerative changes.
Oct 12, 2010Was 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 causation 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.
