Jury said the injury was related to a stint in prison

Yuzary v Hafif, 2016 NY Slip Op 05993 (2d Dept. 2016)

Those Kings County juries, comprised of the children on midwest farmers and southern preachers have taken a turn to the right.  Whereas this fact pattern might not have changed in the trials, the results have.

(1) “On cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that he previously had been convicted of filing false statements. He further testified that, while he was in prison, he experienced shoulder and back pain. He testified that he never told the doctors who treated him after the accident about the pain he experienced while in prison. The plaintiff’s expert physicians similarly testified that the plaintiff failed to inform them of the symptoms he experienced in his back, left shoulder, and left knee prior to the accident. Both of the plaintiff’s experts further conceded on cross-examination that these areas of the plaintiff’s body showed signs of degeneration.”

(2) “The defendant presented the testimony of two expert physicians who reviewed MRI films of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries and concluded that the plaintiff’s alleged deficits were caused either by prior trauma or by degeneration, and not by the accident.”

(3)  “The jury found that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the accident, and the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The plaintiff appeals.”

(4) AFFIRMED.

I think fact #1 was the end.  The film reviews will usually take second seat to a doctor who examined patient over time and there is no evidence or prior traumatic or degenerative pathology.  Again, see #1.  I would say it is nice to see a jury non-suit a lying plaintiff.

Related Articles

• Oh Pearl
• Causation – Be aware of seeking a trial de novo after a master arbitrator affirms an award
• Absence of a business record entry = no motor vehicle accident
• Insurance Material Misrepresentations: When Preponderance Matters More Than Intent
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2016 decision, New York’s no-fault Insurance Law § 5102 serious injury threshold definitions and related case law interpretations may have evolved through legislative amendments or significant appellate decisions. Additionally, CPLR 4404 procedures for challenging jury verdicts may have been subject to rule modifications. Practitioners should verify current statutory provisions and recent precedential authority when evaluating serious injury claims and post-trial motion practice.