Buntin v. Rene
| Decision Date | 23 March 2010 |
| Parties | Marienella E. BUNTIN, appellant,v.Luckson RENE, et al., respondents (and a related action). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREElliot Ifraimoff & Associates, P.C. (Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Cory E. Skolnick–Haber], of counsel), for appellant.Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for respondent Luckson Rene.Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Westbury, N.Y. (Francis J. Scahill and Gilbert J. Hardy of counsel), for respondents K. Vasiliades and Helen Sierra.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), entered February 3, 2009, as, upon renewal, adhered to an original determination in an order entered July 24, 2008, granting the respective motions of the defendant Luckson Rene, and the defendants K. Vasiliades and Helen Sierra, which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court, upon renewal, properly adhered to its original determination granting the respective motions of the defendant Luckson Rene, and the defendants K. Vasiliades and Helen Sierra, which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102(d). The medical report of Dr. Hamid I. Lalani submitted in support of the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew, which contained the plaintiff's range of motion findings shortly after the subject accident, failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). The Supreme Court correctly determined that the report was not affirmed, and certification did not cure this defect ( see CPLR 2106; see also Washington v. Mendoza, 57 A.D.3d 972, 871 N.Y.S.2d 336; Matter of Bronstein–Becher v. Becher, 25 A.D.3d 796, 797, 809 N.Y.S.2d 140). Dr. Lalani's other reports, as well as the reports of STZ Chiropractic, P.C., and Ming...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mcloud v. Reyes
...affirm the contents of the medical report of Dr. Robert F. Dickerson, which was annexed to it ( see CPLR 2106; see also Buntin v. Rene, 71 A.D.3d 938, 896 N.Y.S.2d 894; Washington v. Mendoza, 57 A.D.3d 972, 973, 871 N.Y.S.2d 336; Matter of Bronstein–Becher v. Becher, 25 A.D.3d 796, 797, 809......
-
Irizarry v. Lindor
...must be sworn to or affirmed under the penalties for perjury ( see McLoud v. Reyes, 82 A.D.3d 848, 919 N.Y.S.2d 32;Buntin v. Rene, 71 A.D.3d 938, 896 N.Y.S.2d 894;Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268, 270, 587 N.Y.S.2d 692). Consequently, the various unaffirmed conclusions and opinions of th......
-
Tran v. Mueller
...110 A.D.3d 846, 973 N.Y.S.2d 296 [2d Dept 2013]; see McLoud v Reyes, 82 A.D.3d 848, 919 N.Y.S.2d 32 [2d Dept 2011]; Buntin v Rene, 71 A.D.3d 938,896 N.Y.S.2d 894 [2d Dept 2010]). In any event, even assuming that Dr. Finuoli's report was affirmed, such report, which found that plaintiff's ri......
-
Millord v. Muriq
...New York, 183 A.D.3d 411, 123 N.Y.S.3d 590 [1st Dept 2020]; McLoud v Reyes, 82 A.D.3d 848, 919 N.Y.S.2d 32 [2d Dept 2011]; Buntin v Rene, 71 A.D.3d 938, 939, 896N.Y.S.2d 894 [2d Dept 2010]). The third category of documents encompasses three affirmed radiology reports of the MRIs of the plai......