Tesiero v. Castor: The Third Department Requires Comprehensive, Chronological Medical Proof from Moving Defendants in “Serious-Injury” Motions

1. Introduction

In Tesiero v. Castor, 2025 NY Slip Op 03673 (3d Dept 2025), the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed Supreme Court’s order granting summary judgment to the vehicle owner, Katherine M. Castor (“defendant”), and restored the personal-injury action brought by plaintiff Jamie R. Tesiero and his spouse.

The appeal revolved around New York’s “serious injury” threshold under Insurance Law § 5102(d). Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff’s injuries were pre-existing and therefore not caused, or not serious within the statutory meaning, by the 2018 crash. Supreme Court agreed. The Third Department disagreed, holding that defendant’s proof, resting primarily on an orthopedic IME report, was incomplete and legally insufficient.

The decision crystallises a new, practical rule: a defendant seeking summary dismissal under the No-Fault “serious-injury” threshold must supply expert proof that (a) addresses each claimed injury, (b) evaluates the entire post-accident treatment history, and (c) expressly analyses the plaintiff’s condition during the first 180 days after the accident. Failure to do so leaves unresolved questions of material fact and warrants denial of the motion.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied and Supreme Court’s dismissal was reversed.
• The Third Department found that the defense IME (Dr. Seigel) omitted an opinion on the lumbar-spine injury—plaintiff’s principal complaint—ignored large swaths of post-accident treatment (70 PT sessions, 12 injections, 3 RF ablations), and misstated hospital records.
• The court concluded defendant failed to establish, prima facie, absence of a serious injury under both the “significant limitation of use” and “90/180-day” categories.
• Costs were awarded to plaintiffs and all remaining appellate arguments were deemed without merit or academic.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Sul-Lowe v. Hunter, 148 AD3d 1326 (3d Dept 2017) – Restates the foundational rule that only “serious injury” plaintiffs may sue for non-economic loss.
Lemieux v. Horn, 209 AD3d 1100 (3d Dept 2022), aff’d 39 NY3d 1108 (2023) – Defines the evidentiary standard for “significant limitation” (objective/quantitative or qualitative proof beyond “mild”).
Rosenblum v. Irby, 194 AD3d 1147 (3d Dept 2021) – Clarifies the 90/180-day category requires objective, medically-imposed activity limitations.
Williams v. Ithaca Dispatch, 232 AD3d 1165 (3d Dept 2024) – Sets out defendant’s initial burden on summary judgment and stresses that failure to address 90/180 days is fatal.
Noor v. Fera, 200 AD3d 1366 (3d Dept 2021) – Allows defendants to prevail by showing extensive pre-existing conditions producing the same symptoms—if competently documented.
Earlier Third Department cases—Seymour v. Roe, Caron v. Moore, Hubert v. Tripaldi, Kesick v. Burns-Leader, Cohen v. Bayer—were marshalled to expose internal inconsistencies in defense IME reports and highlight that such inconsistencies support rather than negate plaintiff’s claim.
Second Department precedent: Weber v. Kalisky, 218 AD3d 629 (2d Dept 2023) – Emphasised to show inter-departmental agreement that a failure to address the 180-day period dooms a summary-dismissal motion.

By synthesising these authorities, the court treated the defects in Dr. Seigel’s report not as harmless, but as dispositive: since the moving party bears the burden, any evidentiary gap ends the inquiry and the motion must be denied—regardless of opposing proof.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Prima Facie Burden Not Met. Defendant must first produce competent medical evidence negating serious injury. The IME:
- Omitted any opinion on the lumbar spine (central injury).
- Referenced only 2½ years of a 5-year treatment record.
- Misread ED records (stating no lumbar pain where notes said otherwise).
- Recorded objective deficits (14–20 % ROM loss, positive FABER) inconsistent with the conclusion of “no objective evidence”.
These lapses created triable issues within defendant’s own proof.
Chronology Requirement. The court underscored that serious-injury analysis is inherently temporal. Because Insurance Law § 5102(d) singles out the first 180 days, a defendant’s proof must confront that period directly.
Causation and Pre-Existing Conditions. When a plaintiff has prior injuries, a defendant seeking summary dismissal must disentangle old from new injuries. Bare recitation of prior MRIs, without comparative analysis of post-accident studies or the significance of new treatment (e.g., RF ablations), was inadequate.
Objective vs. Subjective Proof. The IME’s acknowledgment of measurable ROM loss constituted objective evidence supporting plaintiff, further undermining the motion.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation

The decision sets a procedural roadmap (and cautionary tale) for defendants, plaintiffs, and trial courts:

Defendants must present comprehensive, chronological, and injury-specific expert reports. Selective discussion or omission is fatal.
Plaintiffs now have authoritative precedent to defeat motions where the defense expert glosses over key injuries, treatment intervals, or the 180-day period.
Trial Courts are reminded to scrutinise whether the moving papers squarely address each claimed injury and time frame before shifting the burden to plaintiffs.
Insurance Carriers & IME Doctors may adjust report templates to include mandatory sections: (a) causation opinion for each injury, (b) comparative MRI analysis, (c) treatment-timeline chart, (d) separate 0-180-day functional-limitation assessment.
Appellate Dialogue. By citing Second Department authority (Weber), the Third Department positions its rule as statewide, encouraging uniformity across departments.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Serious Injury Threshold (Insurance Law § 5102[d]): A statutory filter in New York’s no-fault auto system. Only claimants with enumerated categories of injury (e.g., significant limitation of use, fracture, death) may sue for pain and suffering.
Significant Limitation of Use: Requires objective (e.g., goniometer) or qualitative (doctor’s comparison to normal function) evidence showing more than a mild restriction.
90/180-Day Category: Plaintiff must show medical proof of substantial inability to perform usual activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days post-accident.
Prima Facie Burden on Summary Judgment: The moving party must first supply evidence that, if unopposed, would entitle them to judgment as a matter of law. Only then does the burden shift to the opponent.
Independent (Defense) Medical Examination (IME): An exam arranged by the defendant/insurer to assess plaintiff’s claimed injuries; often central to summary-judgment motions.

5. Conclusion

Tesiero v. Castor strengthens and clarifies the evidentiary obligations of defendants moving for summary judgment on the serious-injury threshold. The Third Department now demands that defense medical experts:

Render explicit causation opinions for each claimed injury;
Evaluate and discuss the entire course of post-accident treatment, not merely a portion;
Address the plaintiff’s functional limitations during the critical first 180 days.

Because Dr. Seigel’s report was incomplete and internally contradictory, defendant failed at the first procedural hurdle, and questions of fact will be determined by a jury. The ruling serves as a powerful precedent for plaintiffs and a rigorous checklist for defendants in future no-fault litigation throughout New York.