Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire
Contradictory Testimony Creates a Material Dispute of Facts
Post number 5317
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v780caq-liar-liar-pants-on-fire.html and at https://youtu.be/u5QShyNVJEU, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
When Contradictory Sworn Testimony are Presented Summary Judgment Fails
In Jules Francois Parisien MD, as Assignee of Manuel Plasencia v. Erie Insurance Company of New York, Index No. CV-759232-24/RI, 2026 NY Slip Op 50400(U), Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (March 25, 2026) dealt with the insurer’s motion for summary judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On April 24, 2024, an accident occurred involving two vehicles: one driven by Miguel Angel Palaciosromero and the other by Mohamed Mohamed. Manuel Plasencia, a passenger in Palaciosromero’s vehicle, sought No-Fault benefits totaling $1,449.69. Erie Insurance Company, the insurer of Plasencia, denied the claim, asserting the accident was staged. The plaintiff initiated this action seeking payment, and Erie Insurance moved for summary judgment to dismiss the case, arguing there were no material factual disputes and that the accident was staged.
LEGAL ISSUES
New York law recognizes that intentional and staged collisions, regardless of motive, are not covered accidents under an insurance policy. Insurers may seek summary judgment if required verification information is not provided by the plaintiff. However, to prevail on summary judgment, the insurer must provide sufficient proof showing the absence of any material fact. Mere suspicion is insufficient; credible evidence is required.
It is well settled that an intentional and staged collision caused in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme is not a covered accident under a policy of insurance. In truth, the intentional nature of the event does not have to be rooted in efforts to defraud an insurance company, rather, any reason the event is intentional will foreclose the availability of No-Fault benefits
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Erie Insurance’s motion relied on testimony from Mohamed Mohamed, who stated only two individuals were in the Palaciosromero vehicle at the time of the accident. Contrarily, Palaciosromero, Plasencia, and Francisco Monseratte each testified under oath that all three were present in the vehicle. This conflicting testimony raised questions about the credibility and accuracy of the witness accounts.
It is not a court’s function on a summary judgment motion to make credibility determinations or resolve factual disputes. Instead, it must identify whether material issues of fact exist. Because the number of vehicle occupants at the time of the accident was in dispute, and with credible testimony supporting both positions, summary judgment was not appropriate. The presence of triable issues of fact precludes dismissal at this stage, consistent with New York precedent.
In this case, clearly, there are credibility determinations that must be made concerning whether Monseratte was a passenger in the vehicle. That determination cannot be made at this juncture because of contradictory sworn statements.
Regarding that sole issue, upon which the entire allegation of fraud is based, there is no inconsistency. There are, however, credibility issues with Mohamed and the occupants of the vehicle. Precisely for these reasons summary judgement must be denied.
ZALMA OPINION
There is no question if a claimant was not in the car at the time of the accident that fraud has been attempted. However, the three occupants all testified that Manuel Plasencia was in the vehicle and Mohammed testified he was not. The facts are in dispute and summary judgment cannot lie because there are material facts in dispute. This case teaches that when an insurer seeks to prove an accident was staged it needs admissible evidence that is not disputed by other admissible evidence. If someone was lying it is up to the trier of fact to determine which witness was credible.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair.
LAW
Refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.
DISCUSSION
Improper opening remarks.
Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin,...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
