Dembele v. Cambisaca
Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 01409,59 A.D.3d 352,874 N.Y.S.2d 72 |
Decision Date | 26 February 2009 |
Docket Number | 5354. |
Parties | MAHAMADOU DEMBELE, Appellant, v. PEDRO A. CAMBISACA, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Defendant met his prima facie burden by demonstrating that plaintiff had not suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) with, among other things, the affirmations of his orthopedist and neurologist (see Brown v Achy, 9 AD3d 30, 31 [2004]). Plaintiff's radiologist's affirmation, based on a March 2005 MRI, could not rebut defendant's orthopedist's findings of a resolved sprain, and no disability, based on a September 2006 examination (see Thompson v Ramnarine, 40 AD3d 360, 360-361 [2007]). Additionally, plaintiff's radiologist made no findings as to causation of the injury and did not link the torn meniscus to plaintiff's accident (see Otero v 971 Only U, Inc., 36 AD3d 430, 431 [2007]; Medley v Lopez, 7 AD3d 470 [2004]). At any rate, the existence of a partial meniscal tear, standing alone and with no evidence of any limitations caused thereby, is not sufficient to establish "serious injury" (see Cornelius v Cintas Corp., 50 AD3d 1085, 1087 [2008]; Medina v Medina, 49 AD3d 335 [2008]). Moreover, even if substantiated, plaintiff's complaints that, among other things, his knee hurts when he drives or walks up more than four steps, do not constitute the loss of "substantially all" of his usual activities required to make a showing of serious injury.
The affirmation of plaintiff's orthopedist also fails to raise an issue of fact as to permanent injury, as he does not explain the significance of his findings with respect to plaintiff's left knee's range of motion (ROM), or provide any comparison of his ROM findings with normal ranges (see Otero, 36 AD3d at 431). The orthopedist's conclusions are also inadmissible to the extent that they are based on the unsworn medical records and reports, since defendant's doctors did not submit copies of those unsworn papers with their reports, or expressly rely upon them in forming their own conclusions (see Hernandez v Almanzar, 32 AD3d 360, 361 [2006]).
Without any substantiating documentation or affidavit from the employer, plaintiff's vague and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Graf
...95, 97 (1st Dep't 2005) . See Joseph v. Board of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 91 A.D.3d 528, 529 (1st Dep't 2012); Dembele v. Cambisaca, 59 A.D.3d 352 (1st Dep't 2009); Hernandez v. Almanzar, 32 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2006). Even if the court considers both reports, they still establish m......
-
FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC
...Dep't 2005). See Joseph v. Board of Educ. of the City of NY, 91 A.D.3d 528, 529, 938 N.Y.S.2d 3 (1st Dep't 2012) ; Dembele v. Cambisaca, 59 A.D.3d 352, 874 N.Y.S.2d 72 (1st Dep't 2009) ; Hernandez v. Almanzar, 32 A.D.3d 360, 361, 821 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1st Dep't 2006). The allonge's retroactivity......
-
Balkaran v. Shapiro-Shellaby
...A.D.2d 233, 234 (1st Dep't 2003), permitting plaintiff to rely on the document regardless of its inadmissible form. Dembele v. Cambisaca, 59 A.D.3d 352 (1st Dep't 2009); Hernandez v. Almanzar, 32 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2006).V. CONCLUSION Consequently, the court grants defendants' motio......
-
Moore v. URS Corp.
...95, 97 (1st Dep't 2005). See Joseph v. Board of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 91 A.D.3d 528, 529 (1st Dep't 2012); Dembele v. Cambisaca, 59 A.D.3d 352, 352 (1st Dep't 2009); Hernandez v. Almanzar, 32 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2006). Defendants primarily contend that third party defendants' mo......