Key Takeaway
Kester v Sendoya considered degeneration and missing early shoulder complaints. The 2014 ruling did not set a universal six-month treatment deadline.
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.
In Kester v Sendoya, 123 AD3d 418 (1st Dept 2014), the First Department affirmed dismissal of a shoulder-injury claim. The record combined supported degeneration evidence with missing early shoulder complaints. Six months was part of this record, not a deadline the court set for every claim.
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. This historical case predates that amendment.
What the timeline actually showed
The accident occurred in February 2010. During the following months, the plaintiff sought care for other conditions without complaining of shoulder pain. A shoulder complaint and referral appeared in June, orthopedic treatment began in August, and an MRI followed in September. Her orthopedic surgeon first examined her a year after the accident.
The defense had submitted affirmed findings from an orthopedist and a radiologist identifying preexisting degeneration and no evidence of recent traumatic injury. The plaintiff’s records and later expert report did not raise a factual dispute connecting the shoulder condition to the collision. The court evaluated that evidence together, not just the number of months on a calendar.
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.
Delayed measurement is not the same as missing causal evidence
Kester cited Perl v Meher, which had already rejected mandatory contemporaneous numerical range-of-motion measurements. Perl did not dispense with evidence connecting symptoms to the accident. Reading the cases together avoids treating every late examination as fatal or every later opinion as sufficient.
Kester was a tort summary-judgment decision, not a provider’s action for no-fault bills. It did not decide the separate coverage, proof and procedural requirements of such an action. The older comparison with Amato below is preserved as Jason’s commentary; this review has not identified that reference sufficiently to adopt it as a separate holding.
Jason’s original 2014 commentary
Jason’s December 2014 interpretation is preserved below. Its categorical six-month wording is too broad: the decision turned on the combined record described above. The Amato analogy has not been independently identified in this review.
The failure to treat for a particular condition (or to show evidence of same) for 6 months following the motor vehicle accident will break the chain of causation and render an opinion on causation as speculative. This is the extension and really what the Appellate Term meant when it reversed Amato.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
- Preexisting injuries and causation: topic hub
- Hernandez: renewal and different proof for the shoulder and spine
- Valentin: degeneration in the plaintiff’s own medical records
- Frias: an unexplained degeneration opinion from the defense
- Black: reasons required for a claimed aggravation
- Frank: minor-impact evidence and review of a jury verdict
- Valentin’s companion note: the summary-judgment disposition
- Fealy: early knee complaints in a separate no-fault motion
For review of a particular claim, contact the firm.
Last reviewed: September 2026. Original publication date retained.
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
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, 2010
New York Personal Injury Law: Proving Causation in Accident Cases
Learn how to prove causation in NY personal injury cases. Expert analysis of Parisien v Allstate case and causation challenges. Call 516-750-0595.
Aug 10, 2019
Policy Exhaustion and Fee Schedule Defenses in NY No-Fault Insurance Claims
Easy Care v MVAIC: the 2016 split over fee reductions and exhaustion evidence, plus later guidance on verified claims and payment priority.
Oct 27, 2016Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
4 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
What did the court rule about treatment delays and causation in Kester v Sendoya?
The court affirmed dismissal on the combined record: supported degeneration findings, no early shoulder complaints during care for other conditions, delayed shoulder treatment and an insufficient later expert report. It did not establish an automatic six-month deadline.
How do treatment gaps affect personal injury claims in New York?
Missing early complaints or unexplained treatment history can matter to causation, but the effect depends on the evidence and motion burdens. Kester must be read with Perl's distinction between causal evidence and the timing of numerical measurements.
What is a break in the chain of causation under New York law?
In this note, the phrase describes the failure to connect a claimed shoulder injury to the accident on Kester's record. It is not a rule that a specified treatment delay automatically defeats every claim.
Can an expert medical opinion overcome a treatment gap in a New York personal injury case?
A later opinion is not automatically sufficient or automatically barred. Kester found the particular surgeon's report inadequate when considered with the earlier records and degeneration evidence.
Was 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.
