Artis v. Lucas

Citation2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03983,84 A.D.3d 845,921 N.Y.S.2d 910
PartiesDon ARTIS, respondent, v. Pedro LUCAS, appellant.
Decision Date10 May 2011
CourtNew York Supreme Court

84 A.D.3d 845
921 N.Y.S.2d 910

Don ARTIS, respondent,
v.
Pedro LUCAS, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

May 10, 2011.


Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Robert D. Grace of counsel), for appellant.

Louis Grandelli, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Leigh D. Eskenasi of counsel), for respondent.


[84 A.D.3d 845]In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated November

[921 N.Y.S.2d 911]

9, 2010, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197;Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176). In support of his motion, the defendant relied upon, inter alia, the affirmed medical report of Dr. Alan M. Crystal. When this doctor examined the plaintiff in February 2010, he noted significant limitations in the range of motion of the lumbar region of the plaintiff's spine ( see Ortiz v. Orlov, 76 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 907 N.Y.S.2d 688;Cheour v. Pete & Sals Harborview Transp., Inc., 76 A.D.3d 989, 907 N.Y.S.2d 517;Smith v. Hartman, 73 A.D.3d 736, 899 N.Y.S.2d 648;Leopold v. New York City Tr. Auth., 72 A.D.3d 906, 899 N.Y.S.2d 626). Although Dr. Crystal indicated that the limitations noted were subjective in nature, he failed to explain or substantiate the basis for his conclusion that the noted limitations were self-imposed with any objective medical evidence ( see Iannello v. Vazquez, 78 A.D.3d 1121, 911 N.Y.S.2d 654;Granovskiy v. Zarbaliyev, 78 A.D.3d 656, 909 N.Y.S.2d 667;cf. Perl v. Meher, 74 A.D.3d 930, 902 N.Y.S.2d 632;Bengaly v. Singh, 68 A.D.3d 1030, 1031, 890 N.Y.S.2d 352;Moriera v. Durango, 65 A.D.3d 1024, 1024–1025, 886 N.Y.S.2d 45;Torres v. Garcia, 59 A.D.3d 705, 706, 874 N.Y.S.2d 527;Busljeta v. Plandome Leasing, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 469, 870 N.Y.S.2d 366).

Since the defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiff's papers [84 A.D.3d 846]submitted in opposition were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Prophete v. Ruiz-Garcia
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • December 18, 2020
    ...N.Y.S.3d 546 [2d Dept 2015]; Raguso v. Ubriaco, 97 A.D.3d 560,947 N.Y.S.2d 343 [2d Dept 2012]; Artis v. Lucas, 84 A.D.3d 84?, 921 N.Y.S.2d 910 [2d Dept 2011]). third-party defendant Prophete and defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary for the Court to consider ......
  • Williams v. Fava Cab Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 20, 2011
    ...the basis for his conclusion that the noted limitations were self-imposed with any objective medical evidence ( see Artis v. Lucas, 84 A.D.3d 845, 921 N.Y.S.2d 910; Iannello v. Vazquez, 78 A.D.3d 1121, 911 N.Y.S.2d 654; Granovskiy v. Zarbaliyev, 78 A.D.3d 656, 909 N.Y.S.2d 667; cf. Bengaly ......
  • Roc v. Domond
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 18, 2011
    ...significant limitations in the range of motion in the cervicothoracic region of the plaintiff Edouard Roc's spine ( see Artis v. Lucas, 84 A.D.3d 845, 921 N.Y.S.2d 910; Ortiz v. Orlov, 76 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 907 N.Y.S.2d 688; Cheour v. Pete & Sals Harborview Transp., Inc., 76 A.D.3d 989, 907......
  • Jeongyi Kang v. Seville Cent.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 14, 2019
    ...medical evidence, nor any other basis, for such conclusion. See Williams v Fava Cab Corp., 90 A.D.3d 912 (2d Dept. 2011); Artis v. Lucas, 84 A.D.3d 845 (2d Dept. 2011); lannello v. Vazquez, 78 A.D.3d 1121 (2d Dept. 2010); Granovskiy v. Zarbaliyev, 78 A.D.3d 656 (2d Dept. 2010). Dr. Luchs's ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT