Key Takeaway
Goodwin v Walter: separate serious-injury and causation burdens, with medical evidence of an earlier asymptomatic condition and later motion limits.
This article is part of our ongoing 5102(d) issues coverage, with 129 published articles analyzing 5102(d) issues 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.
Goodwin v Walter considered two separate questions: whether the defense supported its serious-injury motion, and whether the plaintiff answered its evidence of an earlier condition.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Legal Update (September 2026): Laws of 2026, chapter 58, Part EE sections 1 and 4 removed the 90/180-day serious-injury category for actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026; the older ruling below applied the earlier statute.
Two different burdens in the same motion
In Goodwin v Walter, 165 AD3d 1596 (4th Dept 2018), decided October 5, 2018, the Fourth Department reversed dismissal and reinstated the complaint. On the limitation-of-use categories, the defense examiner did not explain the basis for his normal-motion conclusions. The burden on those grounds never shifted to the plaintiff. The court also rejected the defense’s 90/180-day showing under the law then applicable.
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.
On causation, however, the defense had supported its claim that an earlier condition accounted for the injuries. The plaintiff answered with evidence from her primary physician and chiropractor: the condition had been asymptomatic before the accident, and measured motion restrictions appeared afterward. That evidence raised a factual issue.
Asymptomatic is evidence, not a shortcut
The physician’s account of the earlier condition mattered alongside the measured restrictions. It did not establish that a patient’s report of no earlier symptoms alone proves causation, or that pointing to degeneration shifts the burden of proof at trial.
Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566 (2005) reached different outcomes on different records. A supported alternative cause requires an answer; the word degeneration by itself does not decide a motion.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
See the pre-existing injury and causation encyclopedia hub for the topic’s case directory and statutory update.
- Bobbio: missing medical support for aggravation
- Grant: competing MRI-based causal explanations
- Valentin: unanswered degeneration in the medical records
- Latus and Vila: explanations for stopping treatment
For review of a particular injury or no-fault dispute, contact the office.
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 5102(d) issues 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
Collateral Estoppel?
Explore collateral estoppel: why default judgments don't preclude later suits & when courts can depart from other departments' rulings.
Sep 28, 2020
Cessation of treatment/Pre-existing injuries/Commentary
Latus and Vila: treatment gaps, contradictory explanations and pre-existing conditions, with Jason's historical commentary kept separate.
Mar 7, 2018
Contemporaneous medical records sufficient
Court ruling demonstrates how contemporaneous medical records can establish causation between accidents and injuries, with implications for no-fault insurance claims.
Dec 11, 2014
90/180 discussion – interpretation of Perl.
Crawford-Reese v Woodard case analysis: 90/180 threshold motion requirements, medical evidence standards, and Perl interpretation for NY serious injury law.
May 5, 2012
Affirmed, Reversed, and Modified on Summary Judgment: Key Causation Lessons
Valentin v Pomilla: why unanswered degenerative findings defeated causation proof, with later Perl guidance and the 2026 serious-injury change.
Jan 25, 2009Was 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 5102(d) issues 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.
