Case Background
A Brooklyn, New York resident sued over a two-car collision that occurred on a Manhattan street in February 2023. Esmeralda Espinal Figueroa filed a negligence lawsuit against the other driver, Robert Markovics, along with two companies connected to the vehicle he drove Kingsley Enterprises, LLC (doing business as Steel Beach Gym) and Fitness Associates Inc. Figueroa alleged Markovics was on the job at the time of the crash and that his employers shared responsibility. The case originally proceeded in New York state Court before it was removed to federal Court in early 2025. After a full trial, a jury in the Eastern District of New York returned its verdict on March 25, 2026.
Cause
On February 6, 2023, Figueroa was driving her vehicle on East 57th Street in New York County when she collided with a vehicle operated by Markovics. The vehicle Markovics drove bore Rhode Island State registration number 44324 and was owned by Fitness Associates Inc. and leased by Kingsley Enterprises, LLC, which did business as Steel Beach Gym. Markovics was employed by both Kingsley Enterprises and Fitness Associates, and Figueroa alleged he was acting within the course and scope of that employment at the time of the crash.
The action was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, on March 8, 2024, and was later removed to federal Court in the Eastern District of New York on January 24, 2025.
Injury
Figueroa claimed she sustained severe, serious, and permanent personal injuries as a result of the collision. According to her complaint, she became sick, sore, lame, and disabled. She alleged injuries to her nervous system, mental anguish, and confinement to hospital, bed, and home. She further claimed that the injuries left her unable to perform her usual duties and vocation, and that she suffered a diminished quality of life. Figueroa asserted her injuries met the "serious injury" threshold under Section 5102(d) of the New York Insurance Law.
Damages Sought
Figueroa sought compensatory damages for past and future pain, suffering, and loss of quality of life; lost wages from the date of the accident through trial; and future medical expenses. She also demanded punitive damages, arguing the Defendants' conduct was willful, wanton, reckless, and malicious. The total amount sought exceeded the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Esmeralda Espinal Figueroa
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Brett A. Zekowski, Esq | Parker Waichman LLP
Defendants: Robert Markovics | Kingsley Enterprises, LLC individually and d/b/a Steel Beach Gym; Fitness Associates Inc.
· Counsel for Defendants: Margot Lee Ludlam
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Plaintiff's counsel argued that the collision was caused entirely by the negligence of Markovics in operating the vehicle, and that his employers Kingsley Enterprises and Fitness Associates bore vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior because Markovics was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Counsel further argued that all three Defendants were negligent, careless, reckless, and grossly negligent in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance, repair, inspection, and control of the vehicle.
Defense counsel maintained that Figueroa herself bore responsibility for the accident. The defense contended that the Plaintiff contributed to the collision through her own negligent driving. Additionally, the defense raised the emergency doctrine, asserting Markovics faced a sudden emergency not of his own making and acted reasonably under the circumstances.
Claims
Figueroa brought two causes of action. Under the first cause of action, she alleged direct negligence against all Defendants in their ownership, operation, maintenance, and control of the vehicle. Under the second cause of action, she alleged that Kingsley Enterprises and Fitness Associates were vicariously liable for Markovics's negligence under respondeat superior, as they hired, trained, managed, controlled, and supervised him as their employee.
Defense
Fitness Associates denied it owned, leased, or controlled the vehicle in question and denied that Markovics was its employee. The defense raised nineteen affirmative defenses. These included contributory negligence and assumption of risk by the Plaintiff; failure to state a claim; the seatbelt defense, alleging Figueroa failed to properly wear or adjust available restraints; statute of limitations; lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service; the serious injury threshold defense under New York Insurance Law Section 5102(d); sole proximate cause by the Plaintiff; the sudden emergency doctrine; collateral source reductions under CPLR Section 4545; apportionment of liability under CPLR Article 16; and intervening and superseding causative factors.
Jury Verdict
On March 25, 2026, the jury returned its verdict before Magistrate Judge Marutollo. The jury found that Defendant Robert Markovics was negligent in operating his vehicle on February 6, 2023, and that his negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident. However, the jury also found that Plaintiff Esmeralda Espinal Figueroa was negligent in operating her own vehicle, and that her negligence was likewise a substantial factor in causing the collision.
The jury apportioned fault equally 50% to the Plaintiff and 50% to the Defendants.
On the question of injuries, the jury answered "No" to all three serious injury threshold questions. It found that Figueroa did not sustain a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member, did not sustain a significant limitation of use of a body function or system, and did not sustain a non-permanent medically determined injury that prevented her from performing her usual daily activities for 90 out of the first 180 days following the accident.
Because the jury found no qualifying serious injury under any of the three categories, it did not reach the damages questions. No monetary award was made for past pain and suffering, lost wages, future pain and suffering, or future medical expenses. The verdict effectively amounted to a defense win on the damages portion of the case, as the Plaintiff failed to meet New York's serious injury threshold required to recover in a motor vehicle negligence action.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
