Key Takeaway
Frank v Gengler: collision evidence and expert testimony supported a jury verdict. Distinguish judgment as a matter of law from a new-trial motion.
This article is part of our ongoing causation coverage, with 51 published articles analyzing causation 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.
Frank v Gengler, 151 AD3d 696 (2d Dept 2017), upheld the legal sufficiency of a defense jury verdict on causation. Photographs and witness testimony described a relatively minor collision, while the defense expert attributed the alleged injuries solely to degeneration. Together, that evidence permitted the jury’s conclusion.
Historical note: Frank reviewed judgment as a matter of law after a tort jury verdict. CPLR 4404(a) separately permits new-trial relief on specified grounds; the decision does not merge those standards or decide a no-fault bill claim.
The appeal concerned judgment as a matter of law
The jury found that the accident was not a substantial factor in causing the alleged injuries. The trial court initially denied the plaintiff’s request to set aside the verdict and enter judgment as a matter of law. Upon reargument, it granted that request. The Second Department reversed that ruling and adhered to the initial denial.
The appellate court asked whether a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could support the verdict, viewing the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion. It found that such a basis existed. That is a different ruling from ordering a new trial because a verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
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.
Minor damage is evidence, not an automatic defense
Frank did not hold that every low-impact collision is incapable of causing injury. Nor did it create a two-item formula that guarantees summary judgment. The court reviewed a completed trial record containing both collision evidence and expert medical testimony.
CPLR 4404(a) separately authorizes judgment as a matter of law and a new trial on specified grounds, including weight of the evidence. Frank’s limited ruling does not eliminate those other grounds. Jason’s first-party/third-party analogy below also should not be read as a holding that a provider’s no-fault bill action has the same burdens or procedural requirements as this tort trial.
Jason’s original 2017 commentary
Jason’s June 2017 reaction is preserved below as historical commentary. His first-party analogy was not a holding of Frank; separate no-fault proof and procedures still require analysis.
Personally, I think this case has huge repercussions. Never have I seen a court lay out such a simple road-map for getting to a determination of lack of causation between the accident and injury. It is the same thought process, regardless of whether we are litigating first-party lack of causation of third-party causation,
Connect to the Encyclopedia
- Preexisting injuries and causation: topic hub
- Valentin: degeneration in the plaintiff’s own medical records
- Frias: an unexplained degeneration opinion from the defense
- Torres and Campanile: when the causation burden shifts
- Mnatcakanova: a causal conclusion that did not answer degeneration
- Kester: delayed shoulder complaints without an automatic cutoff
- Grant: supported competing MRI-based explanations
- Fealy: early knee complaints in a separate no-fault motion
For review of a particular claim, contact the firm.
Last reviewed: September 2026. Original publication date retained.
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
Causation in New York Personal Injury & No-Fault Law
Causation — proving that the defendant's negligence or the accident caused the plaintiff's injuries — is an essential element of every personal injury and no-fault claim. New York courts distinguish between proximate cause, intervening causes, and pre-existing conditions that may have been aggravated by an accident. The legal standards for establishing causation through medical evidence and the defenses available to challenge causal connection are analyzed in depth across these articles.
51 published articles in Causation
Keep Reading
More Causation Analysis
Collateral Estoppel?
Explore collateral estoppel: why default judgments don't preclude later suits & when courts can depart from other departments' rulings.
Sep 28, 2020
New York Personal Injury Law: Proving Causation in Accident Cases
Learn how to prove causation in NY personal injury cases. Expert analysis of Parisien v Allstate case and causation challenges. Call 516-750-0595.
Aug 10, 2019
Trial De Novo granted and declaration of non-coverage granted
Nassau County court grants trial de novo and declares no coverage in Allstate v. Phelps case, finding stroke treatment unrelated to motor vehicle accident.
Feb 21, 2014
Understanding New York’s One Year Rule in No-Fault Insurance Claims
Expert analysis of New York's one year rule in no-fault insurance claims. Nassau County & NYC personal injury lawyer explains ascertainability requirements.
Mar 10, 2010
Junk science?
Imran ordered a new trial after a poorly founded biomechanical opinion. The 2018 ruling concerns the crash-test evidence, not a ban on biomechanics.
Dec 27, 2018
Failure to review actual images insufficient to defeat causation MSJ
Court grants summary judgment where plaintiff's expert failed to review actual ultrasound images, only relying on reports in medical malpractice causation dispute.
Aug 10, 2017Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
4 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
Can minor vehicle damage prove lack of causation in a New York personal injury case?
Not by itself under Frank. The record also contained witness testimony and defense expert testimony attributing the alleged injuries to degeneration. That combined evidence permitted, rather than compelled, the jury's conclusion.
What is the 'substantial factor' test for causation in NY car accident cases?
The jury in Frank was asked whether the accident was a substantial factor in causing the alleged injuries. The appellate court found a rational evidentiary basis for its negative answer, not a rule that minor impacts never cause injury.
Can a trial court set aside a jury verdict for the defendant on causation?
Yes, when the applicable ground under CPLR 4404(a) is established. Frank rejected judgment as a matter of law on that trial record; it did not eliminate the separate grounds for ordering a new trial.
How does the minor impact defense apply to no-fault insurance claims?
Frank did not decide a first-party no-fault claim. Its evidence may offer a comparison, but the coverage issues, burdens and procedural requirements of a provider's bill action must be established separately.
Was 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 causation 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.
