A New York Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer's claim of serious injury from a car accident can proceed to trial. The decision, made on March 19, 2026, affects Bajram Dombalic, who was injured while on duty, and his case against Yevgeni Kaniayev, the driver of the vehicle that struck the police car. This ruling is significant as it highlights the complexities of proving serious injury under New York's no-fault insurance laws.
The case, officially titled Dombalic v. Cornelius, Index No. 151145/2021, arose from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on June 11, 2020. Dombalic was a passenger in a marked police vehicle driven by his colleague Samuel Garcia when their vehicle was hit head-on by Kaniayev's car, which was traveling the wrong way on a one-way street. The impact was severe, causing Dombalic to lose consciousness and sustain injuries to his wrists, neck, and back.
Following the accident, Dombalic was taken to Bellevue Hospital, where he reported pain in multiple areas and was diagnosed with sprains and a concussion. He underwent physical therapy for several months and was unable to perform his regular police duties for an extended period. Dombalic's injuries and their impact on his ability to work were central to the case, as he sought to prove that he had sustained a serious injury under New York's Insurance Law.
The defendants, Kaniayev and James Cornelius, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Dombalic did not meet the legal definition of serious injury as outlined in Insurance Law § 5102(d). They presented medical evidence claiming that Dombalic's injuries had resolved. However, Dombalic countered with his own medical expert, Dr. Ali Guy, who provided evidence of ongoing limitations and pain resulting from the accident.
In his ruling, Justice Ronald Castorina Jr. noted that the defendants failed to meet the burden of proof required to dismiss the case. The court found that the medical evidence submitted by the defendants was inadmissible due to a failure to comply with legal requirements regarding affirmations. Specifically, the court stated, "The record demonstrates that Dr. Berman's affirmation omits this required language. This defect is not technical, but substantive, as it goes to the statutory reliability of the affirmation. Accordingly, the report is inadmissible and cannot be considered."
Furthermore, the court emphasized that even if the defendants' evidence were considered, they did not adequately address Dombalic's condition during the crucial first 180 days following the accident. The court ruled that the absence of evidence regarding this period was a significant flaw in the defendants' argument. Justice Castorina stated, "Defendant's failure to address this category mandates denial of the motion, irrespective of the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition."
The court highlighted the importance of presenting objective medical evidence to establish the extent and duration of injuries. Dombalic's expert, Dr. Guy, provided detailed findings of physical limitations, which the court found sufficient to raise triable issues of fact. The ruling noted, "Dr. Guy's findings of 22% to 34% limitations in the cervical spine and up to 50% limitations in the lumbar spine... constitute objective, quantified evidence of significant limitation."
As a result of these findings, the court denied the motion for summary judgment, allowing Dombalic's case to proceed to trial. The ruling underscores the challenges faced by plaintiffs in proving serious injury claims in New York, particularly in cases involving competing medical opinions.
This ruling could have broader implications for similar cases in the future, as it reinforces the necessity for defendants to provide comprehensive and admissible medical evidence when contesting claims of serious injury. The decision also emphasizes that courts will closely scrutinize the procedural and substantive aspects of such motions.
Looking ahead, the case will continue in the New York Supreme Court, where Dombalic will have the opportunity to present his claims before a jury. The defendants may still seek to appeal the ruling at a later stage, but for now, the focus will be on the trial proceedings. The outcome of this case could set important precedents regarding the interpretation of serious injury under New York's no-fault insurance laws.