Justices at the Appellate Division, First Department fought it out in these two cases — Bent v. Jackson and Thompson v. Abassi — concerning what evidentiary proof is necessary for an injured claimant to demonstrate that he or she has sustained a "serious injury" as defined under Insurance Law Section 5102(d).  Justice Marlow wrote two similar decisions holding that the claimants had failed to proffer sufficient evidentiary proof to defeat the summary judgment motion(discussing lack of evidence explaining cessation in treatment and insufficient of medical records addressing things like diminished range of motion).  By contrast, Justice Saxe in his dissents argued that the majority was requiring more evidentiary proof than the case law contemplated.

As the Court of Appeals just recently addressed the sufficiency of proof within this context, Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., will this infighting at the First Department prompt the Court to revisit the issue?