Djetoumani v. Transit, Inc.
Decision Date | 22 April 2008 |
Docket Number | 2007-07204. |
Citation | 857 N.Y.S.2d 601,2008 NY Slip Op 03580,50 A.D.3d 944 |
Parties | DIABATE DJETOUMANI, Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRANSIT, INC., et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Diabate Djetoumani by demonstrating through the reports of their examining physicians that Djetoumani 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 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, Djetoumani raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury on the basis of the affirmations of his treating and examining physicians demonstrating that he sustained, among other things, a torn rotator cuff as a result of the accident, and that those injuries resulted in a permanent consequential and/or a significant limitation of use of his right shoulder as a result of the subject accident. Although the initial physical examination by Djetoumani's treating physician did not reveal a limitation in the range of motion of his right shoulder, magnetic resonance imaging, performed two weeks later, demonstrated a rotator cuff tear, a tear of the anterior glenoid labrum, and a partial tear of the biceps tendon. Magnetic resonance imaging reports showing such tears are not evidence of serious injury in the absence of objective evidence of the extent of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the injuries, and the duration of these tears does not, alone, establish a serious injury (see Nannarone v Ott, 41 AD3d 441, 442 [2007]; Yakubov v CG Trans Corp., 30 AD3d 509, 510 [2006]; Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45, 49 [2005]). Here, however, the requisite medical finding was provided by the affirmation and report of Louis Rose, Djetoumani's treating orthopedist, which set forth range-of-motion findings with respect to Djetoumani's right shoulder.
Contrary to the defendants' argument, the failure of Dr. Rose to compare his range-of-motion findings to the norm does not, on the record presented here, preclude a finding of a triable issue of fact. In general, in the absence of an assertion of the normal range of motion, an expert's finding as to the plaintiff's range of motion is insufficient to establish the significant or consequential limitation of use necessary to sustain a claim (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d at 353) because it requires the court to speculate as to the meaning of the physical finding (see Nociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d 514, 515 [2007]; Frey v Fedorciuc, 36 AD3d 587, 588 [2007]; Powell v Alade, 31 AD3d 523 [2006]; Manceri v Bowe, 19 AD3d 462, 463 [2005]). Here, however, no such speculation is necessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kruck v. Spinelli, : 13167/08
...Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 345 (2002); Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955 (1992); Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230 (1982); Djetoumani v. Transit, Inc., 50 A.D.3d 944 (2nd Dept. 2008). The burden then shifted to plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a ......
-
Bernier v. Torres
...Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 345 (2002); Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955 (1992); Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230 (1982); Djetoumani v. Transit, Inc., 50 A.D.3d 944 (2nd Dept. 2008). The burden then shifts to plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a s......
-
Rosado v. Bagnall, 2008 NY Slip Op 31971(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 7/3/2008), 0005571/2006.
...sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident. See, Djetoumani v. Transit, Inc., 50 A.D.3d 944 (2nd Dept. 2008). The burden, thus, shifted to plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether plainti......
-
Lim v. Jilani
...of the normal range of motion, an expert's finding as to the plaintiff's range of motion is insufficient." Djetoumani v. Transit, Inc., 50 A.D.3d 944, 945 (2nd Dept. 2008); see, Frey v. Fedorciuc, 36 A.D.3d 587 (2nd Dept. 2007). Further, the affirmed reports of Dr. Berkowitz, which state in......
-
Hearsay
...make required child support payments, had sufficient formality to be considered a formal judicial admission. Djetoumani v. Transit, Inc., 50 A.D.3d 944, 857 N.Y.S.2d 601 (2d Dept 2008). Although treating doctor’s report on his range-of-motion findings was lacking requisite comparison to the......
-
Hearsay
...she failed to provide notice of prior injuries was proper, as pleadings are always admissible as evidence. Djetoumani v. Tr., Inc. , 50 A.D.3d 944, 857 N.Y.S.2d 601 (2d Dept 2008). Although treating doctor’s report on his range-of-motion findings was lacking the requisite comparison to the ......
-
Hearsay
...make required child support payments, had suicient formality to be considered a formal judicial admission. Djetoumani v. Transit , Inc., 50 A.D.3d 944, 857 N.Y.S.2d 601 (2d Dept 2008). Although treating doctor’s report on his range-of-motion indings was lacking requisite comparison to the n......
-
Hearsay
...make required child support payments, had suicient formality to be considered a formal judicial admission. Djetoumani v. Transit , Inc., 50 A.D.3d 944, 857 N.Y.S.2d 601 (2d Dept 2008). Although treating doctor’s report on his range-of-motion indings was lacking requisite comparison to the n......