Key Takeaway
Compare Torres and Campanile: when a serious-injury motion shifts the causation burden, and why unanswered MRI degeneration led to different results.
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.
Two Second Department decisions issued on April 3, 2019, show different outcomes on causation evidence. Torres v Rettaliata, 171 AD3d 829, allowed the case to continue. Campanile v Miller, 171 AD3d 690, affirmed dismissal. Both decisions turned on the medical proof submitted on the motion.
Legal Update (September 2026): Chapter 58 of 2026, Part EE §§ 1 and 4 removed the 90/180-day serious-injury category for actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026. This historical case predates that amendment.
Torres: severity and causation required separate analysis
The defendants made an initial showing that the right-shoulder and spinal injuries did not meet the permanent-consequential or significant-limitation categories. The plaintiff then raised a factual dispute about those categories.
On causation, however, the defendants failed to establish that the injuries were unrelated to the accident. The burden therefore did not shift to the plaintiff to answer a lack-of-causation showing or explain a treatment gap. The court affirmed denial of the defense motion. It did not hold that the defense had failed every part of its initial burden.
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.
Campanile: the radiologist’s findings went unanswered
The defendant submitted medical evidence that the cervical and lumbar conditions were not caused by the accident. His radiologist identified degenerative changes on MRIs taken about a month after the collision. The plaintiff’s experts did not address those findings, so their opposition did not raise a triable causation issue.
Read together, these opinions require attention to the actual motion record. An opponent does not have to cure a showing the movant never made. Once a supported degeneration argument is made, a general statement attributing injuries to the accident may not answer it. These were serious-injury motions, not trial findings establishing a universal medical checklist or a fixed treatment-gap deadline.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if defendants fail to establish prima facie lack of causation?
In Torres, no causation or treatment-gap burden shifted because the defendants did not establish lack of causation. The plaintiff still had to answer the separate showing about injury severity and did so.
Can degenerative conditions completely bar recovery in personal injury cases?
Not automatically. Campanile was dismissed because the plaintiff’s experts did not answer supported findings of degeneration; Torres reached a different result on a different motion record.
How long can treatment gaps be before they affect causation?
These decisions do not set a fixed number of days or months. First identify whether the movant established the relevant causation defense, then examine the treatment history and any explanation required on that record.
What standard must expert testimony meet regarding causation?
An opinion must have an evidentiary basis and answer the issue actually raised. Campanile illustrates why a general causal attribution may fail when it leaves specific radiological findings unaddressed.
Can multiple causes affect the causation analysis?
More than one explanation may require medical analysis, but these decisions do not prescribe a universal apportionment formula. The motion must be assessed on the evidence offered for the claimed accident-related injury.
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
- Mnatcakanova: a causal conclusion that did not answer degeneration
- Kester: delayed shoulder complaints without an automatic cutoff
- Black: reasons required for a claimed aggravation
- Bobbio: missing support for aggravation of a prior neck disability
- Grant: supported competing MRI-based explanations
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
Causation on a degeneration
Goodwin v Walter: separate serious-injury and causation burdens, with medical evidence of an earlier asymptomatic condition and later motion limits.
Oct 10, 2018
Minor Impact and Expert Report Sufficient to Prove Lack of Causation
Frank v Gengler: collision evidence and expert testimony supported a jury verdict. Distinguish judgment as a matter of law from a new-trial motion.
Jun 10, 2017Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
5 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
What happens if defendants fail to establish prima facie lack of causation?
In Torres, no causation or treatment-gap burden shifted because the defendants did not establish lack of causation. The plaintiff still had to answer the separate showing about injury severity and did so.
Can degenerative conditions completely bar recovery in personal injury cases?
Not automatically. Campanile was dismissed because the plaintiff's experts did not answer supported findings of degeneration; Torres reached a different result on a different motion record.
How long can treatment gaps be before they affect causation?
These decisions do not set a fixed number of days or months. First identify whether the movant established the relevant causation defense, then examine the treatment history and any explanation required on that record.
What standard must expert testimony meet regarding causation?
An opinion must have an evidentiary basis and answer the issue actually raised. Campanile illustrates why a general causal attribution may fail when it leaves specific radiological findings unaddressed.
Can multiple causes affect the causation analysis?
More than one explanation may require medical analysis, but these decisions do not prescribe a universal apportionment formula. The motion must be assessed on the evidence offered for the claimed accident-related injury.
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.
