Serious Injury Threshold Reversed in Prado v. Harrison

Representative result. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Key takeaway

In Prado v Town/Village of Harrison, the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the dismissal of a motor-vehicle injury case and reinstated the complaint. The court held that the defense did not carry its initial burden on the serious-injury threshold. It also granted leave to add an additional defendant. Our office represented the injured plaintiff on appeal. The case is a clean illustration of a rule that decides a lot of car accident cases in New York: on a threshold motion, the defense has to prove its point first, and if it doesn’t, the motion fails — no matter how the plaintiff’s papers read.

Most car accident clients never hear the phrase “serious injury threshold” until an insurance company uses it to try to end their case. It is a screening rule, written into New York’s no-fault law in the 1970s, and it does real work: it keeps minor, short-lived injuries out of the tort system while letting genuine injury claims go forward. The problem is that the same rule gets pushed past its purpose. A defense motion arrives, the file says the injuries are not “serious” as a matter of law, and a case that should reach a jury is suddenly at risk of being thrown out before anyone weighs the evidence.

Prado v Town/Village of Harrison is a recent reminder of where the line actually sits.

What happened in the appeal

The underlying case came out of a motor vehicle collision. The injured plaintiff sued, and as the case developed, it became clear there was another party who belonged in the lawsuit. The plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add that additional defendant. The trial court — the Supreme Court, Westchester County — denied that motion. Later, the original defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff had not suffered a “serious injury” under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The trial court granted that motion too, and the complaint was dismissed.

On appeal, the Second Department reversed. It reinstated the complaint, granted the motion to add the additional defendant, and denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion. You can read the official appellate decision — Prado v Town/Village of Harrison, 2025 NY Slip Op 06881 (2d Dep’t Dec. 10, 2025) — on the public record.

I want to be careful about how I describe this, because the point is the doctrine, not a scoreboard. The lower court reached one conclusion; the appellate court, looking at the same record, reached another. That happens. What makes the case worth writing about is why it came out the way it did on the threshold question.

The serious-injury threshold, in plain terms

New York runs a no-fault system for car accidents. Your own insurer pays your basic medical bills and lost earnings regardless of who caused the crash. In exchange, you generally cannot sue the at-fault driver for pain and suffering unless your injury clears the “serious injury” threshold in Insurance Law § 5102(d).

The statute lists the categories that qualify: death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, a fracture, loss of a fetus, permanent loss of use of a body organ or member, permanent consequential limitation, significant limitation of use of a body function or system, and the “90/180” category — a medically determined injury that keeps you from your usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days after the crash.

Several of those categories turn on medical proof and degree. “Significant limitation” and “90/180” in particular get fought over constantly, because they require someone to actually look at the medicine and the patient’s life rather than apply a bright-line rule. For more on how case value moves once you clear the threshold, see our New York personal injury settlement calculator and our Long Island car accident lawyer page.

One important update: New York’s 2026 auto tort reform deleted the 90/180 category from § 5102(d) and changed several other threshold rules. Those changes apply to actions commenced on or after the reform’s effective date, so they do not affect cases like this one that were already pending — but they reshape the threshold for new car accident cases going forward. We break that down in our analysis of the 2026 New York auto tort reform. What did not change is the rule at the center of Prado: on a threshold motion, the defense carries the initial burden.

Why the defense’s prima facie burden matters

Here is the part of the case that should matter to every injured driver and every lawyer who handles these motions.

When a defendant moves for summary judgment on the serious-injury threshold, the defendant moves first and carries the initial burden. That is the prima facie burden — Latin for “at first face.” The defense has to come forward with competent medical evidence that affirmatively shows, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff’s injuries do not meet any claimed category. Usually that means a defense medical exam, an orthopedic or neurological report, and findings that address the specific injuries the plaintiff has pleaded.

The Court of Appeals set the rule decades ago in Winegrad v New York University Medical Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851 (1985): if the moving party fails to make that initial showing, the motion must be denied “regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers.” Read that again, because it is the whole game. If the defense doesn’t carry its own burden, the court never even looks at what the plaintiff submitted. The burden never shifts.

In Prado, the Second Department found the defendants had not met that burden. Once that is true, the analysis is over. It does not matter whether the plaintiff’s opposition was strong, weak, or somewhere in between. A motion that doesn’t clear the first step doesn’t get to the second.

This is not a technicality. It is the safeguard that keeps the threshold honest. Without it, a defendant could file a thin motion and effectively dare the plaintiff to prove the entire case in opposition — which is not what summary judgment is for.

Head, neck, and exacerbation claims have to be addressed

A recurring failure point on these motions is the defense report that does not actually engage with everything the plaintiff claims. If the plaintiff alleges cervical and head injuries, the defense expert has to address cervical and head injuries. If the plaintiff claims the crash aggravated a preexisting condition, the defense has to address aggravation, not just point at the preexisting condition and stop.

A report that finds “minor” limitations without squarely addressing the permanent-limitation or 90/180 categories the plaintiff has pleaded leaves a gap. And a gap at the prima facie stage is fatal to the motion, because the defense has not negated the claim it was required to negate.

The amendment issue: adding a defendant

The other half of the reversal involved the motion to add a defendant. Under CPLR 3025(b), leave to amend “shall be freely given,” and courts are supposed to allow amendments absent real prejudice or surprise to the other side. When a plaintiff discovers, in the normal course of a case, that another party shares responsibility, the liberal amendment policy usually lets that party be brought in.

The Second Department granted the amendment that had been denied below. The practical stakes here are easy to miss but large: if a potentially responsible party is kept out of the case, the injured person can win against the original defendants and still not be made whole, because the party who may carry real responsibility — or real insurance — was never in the room. Preserving the right to add that party can be the difference between a partial recovery and a full one.

Representative appellate result

In Prado v Town/Village of Harrison, the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed dismissal of a motor-vehicle personal injury case involving New York’s serious-injury threshold. The court reinstated the complaint, granted leave to add an additional defendant, and denied the defense motion for summary judgment on the serious-injury threshold. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. represented the injured plaintiff on appeal. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

I write my own briefs and I argue my own appeals, and threshold motions are a large part of what I do. This is the kind of issue that rewards knowing the standard cold: the difference between a dismissed case and a reinstated one was the rule about who has to prove what, and when.

Why this matters if you were hurt in a New York car accident

A threshold motion can end a real case early. That is the danger. But the same rule that makes the motion dangerous also gives an injured plaintiff a defense to it, because the insurer’s lawyers have to do the work first — and sometimes they don’t, or can’t on the medicine in front of them.

If a defense lawyer or an adjuster tells you your injuries don’t meet New York’s serious-injury threshold, that is an argument, not a verdict. It can be wrong on the law and wrong on the medicine. Before you accept that your case is over, have someone who handles these motions look at the file.

Frequently asked questions

What is the serious-injury threshold in a New York car accident case?

It is the bar set by Insurance Law § 5102(d). Because New York is a no-fault state, you generally cannot sue the at-fault driver for pain and suffering unless your injury fits one of the statutory categories — a fracture, significant disfigurement, permanent or significant limitation of use, the 90/180 category, and a few others. Whether an injury qualifies often turns on medical evidence and is regularly litigated.

Can a car accident case be dismissed if the defense says the injuries are not serious?

It can, through a summary judgment motion. But a dismissal is not automatic. The defense has to prove, with competent medical evidence, that the injuries do not meet the threshold. If the court grants the motion when the defense has not carried that burden, the dismissal can be reversed on appeal — which is what happened in Prado.

What does a defendant have to prove on a serious-injury summary judgment motion?

The defendant has the initial, or prima facie, burden. Under Winegrad v New York University Medical Center, the defense must submit evidence that affirmatively shows the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury in any category claimed. If it fails to make that showing, the motion is denied without the court even reaching the plaintiff’s opposition.

What happens if the defense does not address claimed head or neck injuries?

If the plaintiff has pleaded cervical or head injuries, or an aggravation of a preexisting condition, the defense evidence has to address those specific claims. A report that ignores a pleaded category, or never engages with aggravation, generally leaves the prima facie burden unmet — and that defeats the motion.

Can an appeal revive a dismissed personal injury case?

Yes. An appeal can reverse a dismissal and reinstate the complaint, as in Prado. Appeals are not a second trial; they review the trial court’s record for legal error. Preserving your arguments in the trial court is what makes a later appeal possible, which is one reason careful motion practice matters from the start.

Why does appellate experience matter in New York personal injury litigation?

Threshold and procedural rulings can decide a case before a jury ever hears it. A lawyer who handles both the motion and the appeal understands how to build the record below and how to attack a defective ruling above. For related analysis, see our related appellate and no-fault litigation analysis.

Talk to a New York serious-injury lawyer

Injured in a New York car accident and facing a serious-injury threshold dispute? Call The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation, or request a case review. We handle serious-injury and motor-vehicle cases, including threshold motion practice and appeals, across Long Island personal injury and the surrounding counties.

Sources and related reading

• Official appellate decision — Prado v Town/Village of Harrison, 2025 NY Slip Op 06881 (2d Dep’t Dec. 10, 2025), Docket No. 2024-08516.
• Independent legal commentary on the Prado reversal.
• Related appellate and no-fault litigation analysis from our firm.
• About Jason Tenenbaum — appellate and trial practice.

This article discusses a matter of public record for informational purposes. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The underlying merits of the parties’ claims have not been finally adjudicated. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.