Key Takeaway
$1.5M jury award upheld for bus accident victim with cervical/lumbar disc injuries, torn menisci, and post-concussive syndrome under NY Insurance Law 5102(d).
This article is part of our ongoing 4404(a) & weight of evidence review coverage, with 95 published articles analyzing 4404(a) & weight of evidence review 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.
Castillo v MTA Bus Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 05134 (2d Dept. 2018)
“The plaintiff further testified: “ just slammed me to the back … of the bus … . She drove away at a fast pace and that’s when I landed all the way to the back of the bus in a seated down position with my left leg under me.” According to the plaintiff, her fall was of sufficient force that she lost consciousness.”
“During the damages trial, the plaintiff submitted evidence that she sustained disc bulges in almost the entirety of her cervical spine—C2-3 through C7-T1—resulting in diminished range of motion. She also submitted evidence that she sustained lumbar disc bulges at L3-4 and L5-S1, resulting in left S1 radiculopathy, meaning that a loss of function in the S1 nerve caused weakness and loss of sensation in the plaintiff’s left leg. Further, the plaintiff presented testimony that she sustained torn lateral and medial menisci in her left knee, requiring arthroscopic surgery, and that she may need a knee replacement in the future. Moreover, according to the trial testimony, the plaintiff developed postconcussive syndrome following the accident, and she will experience the effects of postconcussive syndrome for the rest of her life.”
“The jury found that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), and awarded her the sum of $500,000 for past pain and suffering and the sum of $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering over 10 years. On November 2, 2015, the Supreme Court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $1,500,000. The defendant appeals.”
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.
“The award of damages for past and future pain and suffering did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation”
Just let this one sink in for a little bit.
Related Articles
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
- Personal Injury Practice Areas
- Employment Discrimination
- Contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2018 decision, New York courts have continued to develop jurisprudence around serious injury thresholds under Insurance Law § 5102(d), particularly regarding post-concussive syndrome and neurological injuries. Additionally, damage award ranges and jury verdict patterns may have evolved significantly over the past eight years. Practitioners should verify current case law interpretations of the serious injury standard and review recent comparable verdict data when evaluating similar claims.
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 4404(a) & weight of evidence review 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
Police Accident Reports and CPLR 4518(a): When They Come Into Evidence — and When They Get Redacted
Shehab v Powers explains when a police accident report is admissible under CPLR 4518(a) — officer observations come in, witness statements get redacted.
May 11, 2017
Range of motion measurements do not require an instrument
New York court clarifies that orthopedic surgeons can measure range of motion without instruments for no-fault insurance threshold determinations.
Jun 25, 2013
Exageration of symptoms beats a threshold motion
New York court ruling shows that medical experts claiming symptom exaggeration must provide objective evidence to support their conclusions in no-fault threshold cases.
Sep 23, 2010
Mr. Ortega, why did you lie to us?
Ortega v Healthcare Services Group case analysis - plaintiff's incomplete disclosure of health history leads to jury verdict favoring defendant on causation and damages.
Nov 15, 2018Was 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 4404(a) & weight of evidence review 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.
