Key Takeaway
The Fourth Department clarifies what evidence plaintiffs need to defeat 90/180 threshold summary judgment motions in no-fault cases, emphasizing objective medical findings and activity restrictions.
Understanding the 90/180 Threshold in New York No-Fault Cases
New York’s no-fault insurance law requires injured parties to meet certain thresholds before pursuing claims against at-fault drivers. One of these thresholds involves being “prevented from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person’s usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of such injury” — commonly known as the 90/180 threshold.
When defendants file summary judgment motions claiming plaintiffs cannot meet this threshold, the question becomes: what evidence must plaintiffs present to create a triable issue of fact? The Fourth Department’s recent decision in Williams v Jones provides valuable guidance for practitioners handling personal injury cases involving no-fault thresholds.
This ruling is particularly significant because it clarifies the evidentiary standard needed to survive threshold summary judgment motions, an issue that frequently arises in cases where medical records may not fully support the plaintiff’s claims.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Williams v Jones, 2016 NY Slip Op 03607 (4th Dept. 2016)
The no-fault geeks can skip passed this post. As to the others: what is necessary to raise an issue of fact to defeat a 90/180 MSJ threshold? Here is an answer.
” In our view, when a plaintiff presents objective evidence of a medically determined injury along with evidence that a medical provider placed restrictions on his or her daily activities, and there is no apparent explanation unrelated to the accident for those restrictions (cf. Dongelewic v Marcus, 6 AD3d 943, 945; Kimball v Baker, 174 AD2d 925, 927), it cannot be said as a matter of law that causation is lacking or that the plaintiff’s limitations are based solely on subjective pain”
ALSO – do not forget that even through permanent consequential and significant limitation were thrown out, prevailing on the 90/180 allows plaintiff to recover for all causally related injuries.
Key Takeaway
The Fourth Department established that plaintiffs can defeat 90/180 threshold summary judgment by presenting objective medical evidence of injury combined with documented activity restrictions from medical providers. Importantly, even when other threshold categories like permanent consequential limitation are dismissed, success on the 90/180 threshold still allows recovery for all causally related injuries.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2016 post, New York’s no-fault threshold jurisprudence has continued to evolve through appellate decisions, and practitioners should verify current case law standards regarding the 90/180 threshold evidentiary requirements. Additionally, Insurance Department regulations and fee schedules referenced in threshold cases may have been amended, potentially affecting how medical evidence is evaluated in summary judgment motions.
