A New York appellate court has reversed a lower court's decision that dismissed a personal injury lawsuit filed by Ruth Reyes against Kevin R. Chapman and others. This ruling, made on October 21, 2026, allows Reyes to continue her claims for serious injuries sustained in a car accident. The case highlights the complexities of proving serious injuries under New York's insurance laws.
The dispute centers around a motor vehicle collision that occurred while Reyes was a passenger in a vehicle involved in an accident with Chapman’s vehicle. Reyes claimed to have sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident, which led her to file a lawsuit seeking damages. The case was initially filed in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County, where it was assigned the index number 619475/21.
In the lower court, the defendants, represented by Moris Duffy Alonso Faley Pitcoff, sought summary judgment to dismiss Reyes' complaint. They argued that she did not meet the legal definition of having sustained a serious injury as outlined in New York’s Insurance Law § 5102(d). The Supreme Court granted this motion on April 1, 2025, leading Reyes to appeal the decision.
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reviewed the case and found that the defendants had not met their burden of proof. The court ruled that the defendants failed to provide competent medical evidence that demonstrated Reyes did not sustain serious injuries to her cervical and lumbar spine and left shoulder. The opinion stated, "The defendants failed to submit competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to the cervical and lumbar regions of her spine and to her left shoulder under the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d)."
The court also noted that the defendants' expert had identified significant limitations in Reyes' range of motion but did not adequately substantiate claims that these limitations were voluntary. Furthermore, the court pointed out that the defendants had not established that Reyes' injuries were not caused by the accident. Due to these failures, the court reversed the lower court's order and denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
This ruling is significant for Reyes as it allows her to continue pursuing her claims for damages. The court's decision underscores the importance of providing adequate medical evidence in personal injury cases, particularly those involving claims of serious injury under New York law. The ruling also indicates that defendants in such cases must thoroughly substantiate their claims if they wish to dismiss a case before it goes to trial.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond this individual case. It reinforces the legal standards that plaintiffs must meet to prove serious injuries and the responsibilities of defendants to provide compelling evidence when seeking dismissal of claims. This case could set a precedent for similar personal injury cases in New York, particularly those involving automobile accidents.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen how the case will proceed in the lower court. Reyes will now have the opportunity to present her case, including any evidence of her injuries and their impacts on her life. The defendants may still seek to challenge her claims, but they will have to do so in the context of a trial rather than through a pre-trial dismissal.
As of now, there are no indications that this ruling will be appealed. However, the defendants could potentially pursue further legal options depending on the developments in the case. The court filing did not provide details on any related cases that might be pending.