In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied Emily A. Kessler's request for summary judgment in her personal injury case against Spencer Martin Carr and Kristen H. Martin. The court's decision, made on July 24, 2026, is significant for individuals involved in personal injury claims, particularly those related to automobile accidents. The ruling could influence how serious injury claims are evaluated in the future.
The case, Kessler v. Carr (Docket No. 496 CA 25-01097), centers on an automobile accident where Kessler claims she sustained serious injuries to her cervical spine. The court's ruling affects not only Kessler but also sets a precedent for similar personal injury cases in New York, particularly regarding the burden of proof required to establish serious injury under New York's Insurance Law.
Emily A. Kessler, the plaintiff, alleges that she suffered significant injuries after being involved in a car accident with a vehicle driven by Spencer Martin Carr and owned by Kristen H. Martin. Kessler sought damages for her injuries, claiming they were caused by the accident. The case reached the Appellate Division after Kessler's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied by the Supreme Court of Erie County on June 11, 2025. Kessler argued that she had met the necessary legal threshold to establish that she suffered a serious injury under the significant limitation of use category defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d).
The dispute arose over whether Kessler's injuries were indeed serious and causally related to the accident. Kessler submitted evidence from a medical expert who stated that she had sustained herniated discs and experienced significant limitations in her cervical spine due to the accident. However, the defendants presented a conflicting medical opinion, indicating that Kessler had only suffered a minor cervical strain that had resolved over time. This contradiction in expert opinions became a central issue in the court's decision.
The court ruled that Kessler did not meet her burden of proof to establish that she sustained a serious injury related to the accident. The judges on the panel, including Bannister, Montour, Greenwood, Delconte, and Hannah, concluded that Kessler's submissions raised triable issues of fact. The court stated, "conflicting expert opinions may not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment," which ultimately led to the decision to affirm the lower court's ruling without costs.
The ruling emphasized that Kessler's medical expert's opinion was not sufficient to overcome the defendants' evidence. The court noted that while Kessler's expert claimed serious injury, the defendants' expert provided a contrasting view, stating that Kessler's limitations were due to subjective complaints of pain rather than objective evidence of injury. The court highlighted that the discrepancies in the medical opinions regarding the causation of Kessler's injuries were significant enough to prevent summary judgment.
This decision is important for future personal injury cases, particularly those involving automobile accidents. It underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to provide clear and convincing evidence that their injuries are serious and directly related to the incident in question. The court's ruling also reinforces the idea that conflicting medical opinions will not be resolved in favor of one party on a motion for summary judgment, meaning that many cases may need to proceed to trial where evidence can be fully examined.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Kessler and the defendants. It sets a standard for how courts may evaluate serious injury claims moving forward, particularly in the context of automobile accidents. Plaintiffs in similar situations may need to prepare for more rigorous scrutiny of their medical evidence and expert opinions. The ruling may also encourage defendants to present comprehensive medical evaluations to counter claims of serious injury, potentially leading to more contested cases in court.
Looking ahead, Kessler has the option to appeal the decision to a higher court, though details on whether she plans to do so were not available in the court filing. The outcome of any potential appeal could further clarify the standards for proving serious injury in New York. Additionally, there may be related cases pending that could explore similar issues of injury causation and the burden of proof in personal injury claims.