Jackson v. Leung
Citation | 952 N.Y.S.2d 130,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06754,99 A.D.3d 489 |
Parties | Ronald JACKSON, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Anthony S.C. LEUNG, et al., Defendants–Respondents. |
Decision Date | 09 October 2012 |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Goidel & Siegel, LLP, New York (Andrew B. Siegel of counsel), for appellant.
Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., Brooklyn (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for Anthony S.C. Leung, respondent.
Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, for Nicolas Rosillo, respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered April 14, 2011, which granted defendant Anthony Leung's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), and order, same court and Justice, entered August 29, 2011, which, upon plaintiff's cross motion to reargue Leung's motion, adhered to its prior order, and granted defendant Nicolas Rosillo's motion for summary judgment on res judicata grounds, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the cross motion granted, and the motions denied.
Defendant Leung failed to meet his prima facie burden of showing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury to his lumbar spine since his sole medical expert, a neurologist, did not report the results of any range of motion testing, review the MRI film of plaintiff's spine, or offer any alternative opinion as to causation ( see Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424 [2011];Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 350, 353, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197 [2002];McCree v. Sam Trans Corp., 82 A.D.3d 601, 920 N.Y.S.2d 35 [1st Dept. 2011] ). Moreover, defendant's neurologist acknowledged a 50% deficit in straight leg raising, which provides objective evidence of lumbar injury ( see Brown v. Achy, 9 A.D.3d 30, 32, 776 N.Y.S.2d 56 [1st Dept. 2004] ), and did not adequately explain that finding ( see Feaster v. Boulabat, 77 A.D.3d 440, 908 N.Y.S.2d 677 [1st Dept. 2010] ). Thus, the burden did not shift to plaintiff, who, in any event, raised an issue of fact with respect thereto by submitting the affirmation of his treating physician, who found recent limitations of range of motion in all planes, and relied on objective evidence, including an EMG/NCS study and MRI report ( see Colon v. Bernabe, 65 A.D.3d 969, 970, 886 N.Y.S.2d 376 [1st Dept. 2009];Brown v. Achy, 9 A.D.3d at 31–32, 776 N.Y.S.2d 56).
Furthermore, contrary to the Supreme Court's holding, it was not necessary for plaintiff to proffer evidence of range of motion deficits contemporaneous with the accident, and, in any event, the physician reported that such limitations existed then ( see Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d at 217–218, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424;Paulino v. Rodriguez, 91 A.D.3d 559, 559–560, 937 N.Y.S.2d 198 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Defendant Leung did not raise a gap in treatment argument in his motion papers ( Tadesse v. Degnich, 81 A.D.3d 570, 917 N.Y.S.2d 569 [1st Dept. 2011] ), and, in any event, plaintiff's treating physician proffered an explanation sufficient to raise an issue of fact ( see Pommells v. Perez, 4 N.Y.3d 566, 577, 797 N.Y.S.2d 380, 830 N.E.2d 278 [2005];Jean–Louis...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gomez v. Supergalex, LLC
...failed to identify any tests that were done to support his conclusion that any injuries had resolved]; Jackson v. Leung, 99 A.D.3d 489, 952 N.Y.S.2d 130 [1st Dept. 2012] [defendant's sole medical expert, a neurologist, did not report the results of any range of motion testing, review the MR......
-
Nwanji v. City of N.Y.
...accident (see e.g. Perez–Vargas v. Aarron, 187 A.D.3d 485, 485–486, 133 N.Y.S.3d 245 [1st Dept. 2020] ; Jackson v. Leung, 99 A.D.3d 489, 489, 952 N.Y.S.2d 130 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Accordingly, the burden of proof on causation never shifted to plaintiff, and he therefore was not required to s......
-
Summers v. Spada
...and is thus insufficient to establish defendants' entitlement to judgment on the issue of causation ( see generally Jackson v. Leung, 99 A.D.3d 489, 489, 952 N.Y.S.2d 130;McCree v. Sam Trans Corp., 82 A.D.3d 601, 601, 920 N.Y.S.2d 35). Defendants also failed to meet their burden with respec......
-
Johnson v. Salaj
...Dept.2012] ). Thus, the burden did not shift to plaintiff to submit evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Jackson v. Leung, 99 A.D.3d 489, 952 N.Y.S.2d 130 [1st Dept.2012] ).Had the burden shifted, plaintiff raised an issue of fact through the affirmation of 13 N.Y.S.3d 420her ......