Key Takeaway
Jury finds no serious injury after plaintiff failed to disclose prison-related pain, affirming verdict against lying plaintiff in NY no-fault case.
This article is part of our ongoing coverage coverage, with 150 published articles analyzing coverage 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.
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.”
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.
(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.
Related: What “de novo” means in New York — trial de novo and de novo review, explained.
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
Insurance Coverage Issues in New York
Coverage disputes determine whether an insurance policy provides benefits for a particular claim. In the no-fault context, coverage questions involve policy inception, named insured status, vehicle registration requirements, priority of coverage among multiple insurers, and the applicability of exclusions. These articles examine how New York courts resolve coverage disputes, the burden of proof on coverage defenses, and the interplay between regulatory requirements and policy language.
150 published articles in Coverage
Keep Reading
More Coverage 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
Back when DJ’s roamed the earth
Ultimate Health Prods. v American Tr. Ins. Co. case analysis on declaratory judgment actions, res judicata, and no-fault insurance coverage disputes in New York courts.
Aug 29, 2014
Contract of insurance is vitiated?
New York insurance law requires timely notice of claims. When insureds fail to provide proper notice, the entire insurance contract can be voided, leaving them without coverage.
May 10, 2011
Insurance Material Misrepresentations: When Preponderance Matters More Than Intent
Learn how NY Insurance Law Section 3105(b) allows policy rescission for material misrepresentations without proving intent.
Jul 24, 2009
Occupied? Pedestrian?
Court clarifies when someone transitions from vehicle occupant to pedestrian status, impacting no-fault insurance coverage eligibility in New York.
Dec 15, 2016Was 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 coverage 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.
