Kennedy v. Brown, 2005-01388.
| Decision Date | 28 November 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2005-01388. |
| Citation | 2005 NY Slip Op 09074,23 A.D.3d 625,805 N.Y.S.2d 408 |
| Parties | MARY KENNEDY et al., Respondents, v. WINSTON A. BROWN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The reports of the defendant's examining physician largely failed to set forth the objective tests which were performed to support his conclusion that neither of plaintiffs suffered from any limitation of range of motion (see Zavala v DeSantis, 1 AD3d 354 [2003]; Black v Robinson, 305 AD2d 438 [2003]; Urbanski v Mulieri, 287 AD2d 710 [2001]). In addition, although the doctor "ascribe[s] the degree of range of motion in certain areas to some objective testing, he does not compare [either of the plaintiffs'] range of motion with a normal range of motion" (Bent v Jackson, 15 AD3d 46, 49 [2005]; see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]). Accordingly, under these circumstances, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., supra; Bent v Jackson, supra; Urbanski v Mulieri, supra). Consequently, the burden never shifted to the plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact, and we need not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' opposition to the motion (see Trantel v Rothenberg, 286 AD2d 325 [2001]; Papadonikolakis v First Fid. Leasing Group, 283 AD2d 470 [2001]).
Thus, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Giglio v. Ntimp Inc.
-
Pipinias v. J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc.
...388, 389, 840 N.Y.S.2d 430;Costello v. Reilly, 36 A.D.3d 581, 581, 828 N.Y.S.2d 172;Kay Waterproofing Corp. v. Ray Realty Fulton, Inc., 23 A.D.3d at 625, 804 N.Y.S.2d 815;London v. Iceland Inc., 306 A.D.2d 517, 517, 761 N.Y.S.2d 862). “The determination of whether an excuse is reasonable in......
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Shami
...439 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bonanno, 146 A.D.3d 844, 845–846, 45 N.Y.S.3d 173 ; Kay Waterproofing Corp. v. Ray Realty Fulton, Inc., 23 A.D.3d at 625, 804 N.Y.S.2d 815 ). Here, the plaintiff took no proceedings for entry of a default judgment within one year following the appellant's def......
-
Kreizman v. Glantz
...2008] Moreover, Dr. Wert did not indicate that the limitation of range of motion he found was objectively obtained. See Kennedy v. Brown, 23 A.D.3d 625, 805 N.Y.S.408 [2nd Dept, 2005] and Schilling v. Labrador, 136 A.D.3d 884, 25 N.Y.S.3d 331 [2nd Dept, 2016]. Finally, Dr. Wert examined Ms.......
-
G. Overview of the Most Litigated Threshold Categories
...301 A.D.2d 554, 555, 756 N.Y.S.2d 57 (2d Dep't 2003); Manceri v. Bowe, 19 A.D.3d 462, 798 N.Y.S.2d 441 (2d Dep't 2005); Kennedy v. Brown, 23 A.D.3d 625, 805 N.Y.S.2d 408 (2d Dep't 2005).[654] McCluskey v. Aguilar, 10 A.D.3d 388, 781 N.Y.S.2d 130 (2d Dep't 2004); Christman v. Cueva, 6 A.D.3d......
-
G. Overview Of The Most Litigated Threshold Categories
...301 A.D.2d 554, 555, 756 N.Y.S.2d 57 (2d Dep't 2003); Manceri v. Bowe, 19 A.D.3d 462, 798 N.Y.S.2d 441 (2d Dep't 2005); Kennedy v. Brown, 23 A.D.3d 625, 805 N.Y.S.2d 408 (2d Dep't 2005).[671] McCluskey v. Aguilar, 10 A.D.3d 388, 781 N.Y.S.2d 130 (2d Dep't 2004); Christman v. Cueva, 6 A.D.3d......