A New York appellate court has upheld the dismissal of a personal injury case filed by Natalie Vinasco against Abdulhakeem A. Kuzam and others. The court ruled that Vinasco did not prove she suffered a serious injury as defined by state law. This decision, made on October 8, 2026, affects Vinasco and could have implications for similar personal injury claims in New York.
The case began when Vinasco filed a lawsuit claiming injuries from an accident involving Kuzam. The dispute centered around whether Vinasco's injuries were serious enough to warrant compensation under New York's Insurance Law. The court's ruling is significant because it clarifies the standards for proving serious injury in personal injury cases.
In the original complaint, Vinasco alleged that she sustained injuries due to the negligence of Kuzam and other defendants. The case was filed in the Supreme Court of Bronx County and later appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The lower court had previously granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, which led to Vinasco's appeal.
The Appellate Division reviewed the case and confirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the defendants had established that Vinasco did not suffer a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d). They supported their argument with expert reports from both an orthopedist and a radiologist, who stated that Vinasco did not have any injuries resulting from the accident.
The court stated, "Defendants established prima facie that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury... by submitting expert reports from an orthopedist and a radiologist." The ruling emphasized that Vinasco failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as the medical records she provided were unaffirmed, and the defendants' expert did not rely on them. The court also noted that while the defendants' expert radiologist did refer to MRI records, these records did not indicate any injuries related to the accident.
Furthermore, the court ruled that Vinasco did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claim of a 90/180-day injury, which requires proof that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of their usual daily activities for 90 of the first 180 days following the accident. The court stated, "In the absence of any issue of fact as to whether plaintiff's injuries were causally related to the accident, the court properly dismissed the 90/180-day claim."
The court also addressed Vinasco's motion for leave to renew her opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that the lower court acted wisely in denying this motion, as Vinasco did not present new facts that would change the outcome of the case. The ruling noted, "Plaintiff failed to raise new facts that would have changed the outcome of the summary judgment motion, or to provide a reasonable excuse for failing to present those facts at the proper time."
This ruling has significant implications for personal injury claims in New York. It reinforces the requirement for plaintiffs to provide clear and convincing medical evidence of serious injuries in order to succeed in their claims. The decision may deter individuals from filing claims without substantial medical documentation or expert testimony.
Going forward, this ruling could affect how personal injury cases are approached in the state. Plaintiffs may need to ensure they have solid medical evidence and expert opinions before pursuing legal action. This case may also serve as a reference point for future cases involving claims of serious injury.
As for the next steps, Vinasco has the option to appeal this ruling to a higher court. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence how similar cases are handled in the future.