A New York appellate court has ruled against Max Services Corp. and Marco Miranda in a personal injury case stemming from a motor vehicle accident. The court's decision allows the plaintiffs, Francis Bonilla-Acosta and Dinaili Andujar-Martinez, to continue their claims for damages. This ruling is significant for individuals seeking compensation for injuries sustained in accidents, as it emphasizes the burden of proof required from defendants in such cases.
The court's ruling came on October 14, 2026, in the case Bonilla-Acosta v. Max Services Corp., under docket number 2025-06353. The plaintiffs allege that they sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident, which occurred while they were in a vehicle operated by Miranda and owned by Max Services Corp. The ruling affirms a prior decision made by the Supreme Court of Queens County, which denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Background
The plaintiffs, Francis Bonilla-Acosta and Dinaili Andujar-Martinez, filed a lawsuit against Max Services Corp. and Marco Miranda following a motor vehicle accident. They claimed to have sustained serious injuries that qualify for damages under New York's Insurance Law. The defendants, Max Services Corp. and Marco Miranda, sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that the plaintiffs did not meet the legal definition of a serious injury as outlined in Insurance Law § 5102(d).
The case reached the appellate court after the Supreme Court of Queens County denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on May 8, 2025. The defendants appealed this decision, maintaining that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of serious injuries caused by the accident.
The Ruling
The appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, affirming the lower court's decision to deny the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court stated that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof to show that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury as defined by law. The court noted, "The defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that any injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs were not caused by the accident."
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the medical evidence presented by the defendants was insufficient. The court explained that the biomechanical expert's opinions did not adequately demonstrate that the plaintiffs' injuries were not related to the accident. The court stated, "Bandstra's conclusions were based, in part, on his rejection of the plaintiffs' deposition testimonies as to how their injuries occurred." This ruling reinforces the importance of credible medical evidence in personal injury cases.
Impact
This decision is significant for personal injury law in New York. It clarifies the responsibilities of defendants when asserting that plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries. The ruling emphasizes that defendants must provide strong medical evidence to support their claims, especially when disputing the causation of injuries. This case may influence how future personal injury claims are litigated, particularly regarding the burden of proof.
The ruling also highlights the importance of the testimony of plaintiffs in establishing the connection between their injuries and the accident. It shows that courts will closely examine the evidence presented by both sides before making a determination on the severity of injuries claimed.
What's Next
The defendants, Max Services Corp. and Marco Miranda, may seek to appeal this decision to a higher court. However, details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case will continue to be closely watched as it may set a precedent for similar personal injury cases in the future.