In a lawsuit arising out of a 2022 motor vehicle accident, defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff did not satisfy the serious injury requirement of Insurance Law § 5104(a). While defendants made out a prima facie case in support of their summary judgment motion through their doctor's affirmed report and by noting that plaintiff missed only three weeks of work, plaintiff's treating doctor affirmed to two examinations yielding reduced ranges of motion. Plaintiff demonstrated material issues of fact regarding permanent consequential limitation and significant limitation sufficient to warrant denial of defendants' motion.

Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Aaron Maslow noted, however, that in reviewing the bill of particulars, it had to consider all nine categories of serious injury plaintiff had claimed, which included death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, fracture, and loss of fetus.

Answering Maslow's inquiry as to why all nine serious injury categories were claimed, plaintiff's counsel from the Law Offices of William Pager argued that the individual body parts listed in the bill of particulars provided the relevant information, but described the serious injury categories claimed as 'unartful' and 'unfortunate.'