Why Trust This Analysis
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.
When litigating serious injury claims under New York’s no-fault insurance law, establishing the threshold requirements can be challenging, particularly when facing well-funded defendants. The Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) often aggressively defends even modest policy limits cases, making thorough medical documentation crucial for plaintiffs.
The Cooper v. MVAIC decision provides important guidance on what types of medical evidence can satisfy the “permanent consequential limitation of use” category under Insurance Law Section 5102(d). This case is particularly significant because it involves MVAIC, which serves as the insurer of last resort for uninsured motorist claims and frequently contests serious injury determinations, even in cases with relatively low policy limits.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Cooper v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 51707(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
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.
“Here, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury’s conclusion that plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiff’s expert witness testified about plaintiff’s limitation of her ranges of motion and compared his findings to normal ranges of motion. Moreover, the expert witness offered testimony with respect to the tests he had performed to arrive at his conclusion that plaintiff had sustained a serious injury (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 ; Scudera v Mahbubur, 299 AD2d 535 ). Although defendant’s medical experts offered a different opinion, the resolution of conflicting medical opinions is within the province of the jury (see Mendoza v Kaplowitz, 215 AD2d 735 ).”
Range of motion and orthopedic tests are sufficient to establish threshold. Leave it to MVAIC to make plaintiff’s life on a 25k policy case miserable.
Key Takeaway
The Cooper decision confirms that expert medical testimony documenting range of motion limitations and orthopedic test results can establish serious injury under the “permanent consequential limitation of use” category. When medical experts disagree, juries have the authority to weigh conflicting opinions and determine which is more credible.
Related Articles
- Understanding collateral estoppel in New York no-fault insurance cases
- Medical causation and expert opinions in NY personal injury cases
- New York no-fault causation requirements and trial de novo procedures
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2016 post, New York’s serious injury threshold requirements under Insurance Law § 5102(d) may have been subject to regulatory amendments, updated medical documentation standards, or evolving case law interpretations. Additionally, MVAIC procedures and defense strategies may have changed through regulatory updates or administrative modifications. Practitioners should verify current threshold requirements and evidentiary standards when pursuing serious injury claims.
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
How Medical Expert Testimony Can Make or Break Your NY Personal Injury Case
Valentin v Pomilla: why unanswered spine and knee degeneration mattered, and how Perl later distinguished causal evidence from early ROM measurements.
Feb 15, 2009
Jury said the injury was related to a stint in prison
Jury finds no serious injury after plaintiff failed to disclose prison-related pain, affirming verdict against lying plaintiff in NY no-fault case.
Sep 19, 2016
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, 2011Was 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.
