Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing 5102(d) issues coverage, with 89 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.
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:
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.
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.
Related Articles
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
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
NY Serious Injury Threshold: When Suboptimal Effort Derails Personal Injury Cases
Learn how NY's serious injury threshold works and why suboptimal effort can destroy your personal injury case. Expert Long Island attorney guidance.
Nov 25, 2019
90/180 discussion – interpretation of Perl.
Crawford-Reese v Woodard case analysis: 90/180 threshold motion requirements, medical evidence standards, and Perl interpretation for NY serious injury law.
May 5, 2012
Understanding Self-Imposed ROM Limitations in Personal Injury Cases: What New York Plaintiffs Need to Know
Learn how NY courts handle self-imposed ROM limitation claims in personal injury cases. Expert legal guidance. Call 516-750-0595 for free consultation.
Sep 13, 2019
Femur Fracture and New York's Serious Injury Threshold: When Causation Becomes a Question of Fact
In Peterson v Ward, a plaintiff who walked unassisted after a crash raised fact issues on whether a femur fracture met New York's serious injury threshold.
Dec 26, 2017
Triable issue of causation established
Vargas v Marte: the First Department's knee-causation ruling, the before-and-after MRI comparison, and limits of the surviving claim.
Dec 11, 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.
