The New York Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has ruled on a personal injury case involving Dovid Hiller and Jetex Services, Inc. The court upheld a lower court's decision denying the defendants' request to dismiss the case. This ruling is significant for individuals seeking compensation for injuries sustained in vehicle accidents.
The case, Hiller v. Jetex Servs., Inc., was filed under docket number 2024-10464. It centers around a motor vehicle accident where Hiller claims he sustained serious injuries. The court's decision, issued on July 29, 2026, clarifies the standards for proving serious injury under New York's Insurance Law.
In this case, the plaintiffs, led by Dovid Hiller, allege that they suffered injuries due to a car accident involving Jetex Services, Inc. and its affiliates. The plaintiffs sought damages for personal injuries, asserting that the accident caused significant harm to Hiller's cervical and lumbar spine. The defendants, Jetex Services, Inc., and others, contested this claim, arguing that Hiller did not sustain a serious injury as defined by New York law.
The case reached the Appellate Division after the Supreme Court in Queens County, presided over by Judge Ulysses B. Leverett, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The defendants argued that Hiller's injuries were not caused by the accident and therefore did not meet the criteria for serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d).
The court ruled that the defendants established a prima facie case that Hiller's injuries were not caused by the accident. However, the plaintiffs successfully raised a triable issue of fact regarding the cause of Hiller's injuries. The court noted that the defendants failed to provide competent medical evidence to demonstrate that Hiller did not sustain a serious injury.
The court stated, "The defendants failed to submit competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that Hiller did not sustain a serious injury to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d)."
The Appellate Division's decision affirms the lower court's ruling, allowing Hiller's case to proceed. The ruling indicates that the court found merit in the plaintiffs' claims and that there are unresolved issues regarding the extent of Hiller's injuries and their connection to the accident.
The impact of this ruling is significant for personal injury cases in New York. It reinforces the importance of presenting competent medical evidence in disputes over serious injuries. The decision may encourage other plaintiffs in similar situations to pursue their claims, knowing that they can challenge a summary judgment motion if they present sufficient evidence of injury.
Going forward, this ruling may influence how defendants approach summary judgment motions in personal injury cases. It highlights the necessity for them to provide strong medical evidence to support their claims that injuries were not caused by an accident. This case may also serve as a precedent for future cases involving similar issues of serious injury under New York law.
As for what’s next, the defendants have the option to appeal this decision to a higher court. However, details on whether they plan to do so were not available in the court filing. There may be related cases pending that could also be affected by this ruling.