In E. v. D., the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed two orders from the Supreme Court, Kings County, effectively ending A.L.E.’s personal injury claim stemming from a motor vehicle accident involving E.D. and co-defendants. The central issue was whether A.L.E. sustained a “serious injury” as defined under Insurance Law § 5102(d), a statutory threshold that determines whether a plaintiff may recover for pain and suffering in auto accident cases.
E.D. moved for summary judgment, presenting medical evidence that A.L.E.’s alleged injuries—specifically to his left knee and spinal regions—were not causally related to the accident but were instead degenerative and preexisting. This evidence met the prima facie burden required under New York law. In response, A.L.E. failed to raise a triable issue of fact. His expert did not rebut the defendants’ findings regarding the degenerative nature of the injuries, nor did the expert provide a compelling alternative explanation for their origin.
Following the dismissal, A.L.E. sought leave to renew his opposition, submitting an amended expert report. However, the court found that the report did not contain new facts unknown at the time of the original motion and that A.L.E. failed to justify why this evidence had not been presented earlier. Under CPLR 2221(e), a motion to renew must be based on genuinely new material and cannot serve as a second attempt to correct strategic or evidentiary missteps.
The appellate court affirmed both the December 2023 and March 2024 orders, awarding costs to E.D. and co-defendants.
Degenerative spine, degenerative hope, degenerative outcome.
# # #
DECISION