A New York appellate court recently ruled in the case of Hassane v. Elbakry, which involved a personal injury claim stemming from a vehicle accident. The court's decision, issued on September 16, 2026, reversed a lower court's ruling that had dismissed the plaintiff's complaint. This case is significant for individuals involved in similar personal injury claims, as it clarifies the requirements for proving serious injury under New York law.
The plaintiff, Moustafa Hassane, filed a lawsuit against Kareem Elbakry after he sustained injuries while riding as a passenger in Elbakry's vehicle. The accident occurred when Elbakry lost control of the vehicle, causing it to crash into a tree. Hassane sought damages for the injuries he claimed to have sustained in the accident. This case reached the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York after the Supreme Court in Dutchess County granted Elbakry's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Hassane's complaint.
The dispute centers on whether Hassane sustained a serious injury as defined by New York's Insurance Law § 5102(d). This law outlines specific criteria for what constitutes a serious injury, which is necessary for a plaintiff to recover damages in a personal injury lawsuit. The lower court ruled that Hassane did not meet this threshold, leading to his appeal.
The Appellate Division, comprised of Judges Hector D. Lasalle, Linda Christopher, Carl J. Landicino, and James P. McCormack, reviewed the case and ultimately reversed the lower court's decision. The court ruled that Elbakry failed to demonstrate that Hassane did not sustain a serious injury as defined by the law. The ruling stated, "The defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident."
The court further noted that Elbakry's evidence did not sufficiently eliminate triable issues regarding Hassane's claims of serious injury to his spine and shoulder. The ruling emphasized that the defendant's submissions did not address all of the plaintiff's claims, including those related to preexisting injuries exacerbated by the accident. This lack of evidence led the court to conclude that the lower court should have denied Elbakry's motion for summary judgment.
Additionally, the Appellate Division addressed Hassane's cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, which the lower court had denied as academic. The appellate court decided to consider this motion in the interest of judicial economy, stating, "Since the merits of the cross-motion were litigated by the parties in the Supreme Court and briefed by the parties in this Court, we address the cross-motion in the interest of judicial economy." The court found that Hassane provided sufficient evidence to raise questions about Elbakry's negligence, particularly regarding the circumstances that led to the loss of vehicle control.
The ruling clarified that a passenger in a negligence case can shift the burden of proof to the driver if they can demonstrate that the accident resulted from the driver's loss of control. The court explained that the emergency doctrine, which can absolve a driver of liability in certain situations, does not apply if there are unresolved questions about the driver's negligence.
This decision is important for individuals involved in personal injury cases in New York. It reinforces the requirement for defendants to provide clear evidence when claiming that a plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury. The ruling also highlights the importance of addressing all claims made by the plaintiff, including those related to preexisting conditions.
Moving forward, this ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in New York courts. It underscores the necessity for defendants to meet their burden of proof when seeking summary judgment in personal injury cases. The decision may encourage more plaintiffs to pursue their claims, knowing that the courts are willing to scrutinize the evidence presented by defendants more closely.
As for the next steps, it is unclear whether Elbakry plans to appeal the Appellate Division's ruling. The case may return to the lower court for further proceedings, where both parties will have the opportunity to present additional evidence regarding the claims of injury and liability. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court opinion.