Macdelinne F. v. Jimenez

Decision Date19 March 2015
Docket Number13399, 112609/10
Citation6 N.Y.S.3d 40,126 A.D.3d 549,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02188
PartiesMACDELINNE F., an Infant Under the Age of Fourteen Years (14), by her Mother and Natural Guardian, Inmaculada Z., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Yolanda JIMENEZ, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Budin, Reisman, Kupferberg & Bernstein, LLP, New York (Gregory C. McMahon of counsel), for appellants.

Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Westbury (Andrea E. Ferrucci of counsel), for Jimenez respondents.

Russo, Apoznanski & Tambasco, Melville (Yamile Al–Sullami of counsel), for Regine Brutus, respondent.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, DeGRASSE, CLARK, JJ.

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered July 15, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the threshold issue of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motions as to plaintiff Macdelinne F.'s (Macdelinne) claims of “permanent consequential” and “significant” limitations of use of her left knee, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established prima facie that Macdelinne did not suffer a serious injury by submitting an orthopedist's report finding full range of motion and negative clinical test results upon examination of the left knee and a radiologist's report finding that the MRI performed on that knee was normal (see Harrigan v. Kemmaj, 85 A.D.3d 559, 925 N.Y.S.2d 331 [1st Dept.2011] ; Gibbs v. Hee Hong, 63 A.D.3d 559, 559, 881 N.Y.S.2d 415 [1st Dept.2009] ).

In opposition, plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a “significant” or “permanent consequential” limitation of use by submitting affirmations by a radiologist who found that the MRI showed evidence of a tear in the posterior horn of the medial meniscus and Macdelinne's treating physicians, who found limitations in range of motion at a recent examination and opined that the knee injury was caused by the accident (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197 [2002] ). Unaffirmed medical reports prepared by her physicians during the period following the accident were properly considered because defendants' orthopedist relied on them in forming his opinion (see Pantojas v. Lajara Auto Corp., 117 A.D.3d 577, 986 N.Y.S.2d 87 [1st Dept.2014] ; Thompson v. Abbasi, 15 A.D.3d 95, 97, 788 N.Y.S.2d 48 [1st Dept.2005] ).

If Macdelinne establishes a serious injury to her left knee at trial, she will be entitled to recover damages for all injuries incurred as a result of the accident, even those that do not meet the serious injury threshold (Rubin v. SMS Taxi Corp., 71 A.D.3d 548, 898 N.Y.S.2d 110 [1st Dept.2010] ).

Defendants met their initial burden as to Macdelinne's 90/180–day claim through Macdelinne's testimony that she was confined to bed and home for only one or two weeks after the accident (Mitrotti v. Elia, 91 A.D.3d 449, 936 N.Y.S.2d 42 [1st Dept.2012] ; Jean v. Kabaya, 63 A.D.3d 509, 881 N.Y.S.2d 891 [1st Dept.2009] ). The evidence that her doctors directed her to refrain from participating in gym class, taking stairs, running, or jumping is insufficient to raise an issue of fact whether she was prevented from performing “substantially all of the material acts which constitute [her] usual and customary daily activities” during the relevant period (Insurance Law § 5102[d] ; see Ceruti v. Abernathy, 285 A.D.2d 386, 387, 728 N.Y.S.2d 445 [1st Dept.2001] ).

Defendants established prima facie that plaintiff Carmen...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Tully v. Kenmore-Tonawanda Union Free Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 8 Julio 2022
    ...267 [4th Dept. 2005] ; see Altieri v. Liccardi , 163 A.D.3d 1254, 1256, 80 N.Y.S.3d 689 [3d Dept. 2018] ; Macdelinne F. v. Jimenez , 126 A.D.3d 549, 550, 6 N.Y.S.3d 40 [1st Dept. 2015] ).The burden thus shifted to plaintiff, and we conclude that she failed to meet that burden inasmuch as he......
  • Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dunham Piping & Heating Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 24 Septiembre 2021
    ...them, defendants may rely on them in opposition. E.g., Cortez v. Bray, 192 A.D.3d 451, 451 (1st Dep't 2021); Macdelinne F. v. Jimenez, 126 A.D.3d 549, 550 (1st Dep't 2015); Pantojas v. Lajara Auto Corp., 117 A.D.3d 577, 577-78 (1st Dep't 2014); Mitchell v. Calle, 90 A.D.3d 584, 585 (1st Dep......
  • Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dunham Piping & Heating Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 24 Septiembre 2021
    ...them, defendants may rely on them in opposition. E.g., Cortez v. Bray, 192 A.D.3d 451, 451 (1st Dep't 2021); Macdelinne F. v. Jimenez, 126 A.D.3d 549, 550 (1st Dep't 2015); Pantojas v. Lajara Auto Corp., 117 A.D.3d 577, 577-78 (1st Dep't 2014); Mitchell v. Calle, 90 A.D.3d 584, 585 (1st Dep......
  • Castillo v. Togo Express Shipping & Transp. Decision & Order & Fousseni-Sahm Traore
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 24 Marzo 2016
    ...examination requirement and the quantitative analysis requirement to establish a triable issue of fact (Macdelinne F. v Jimenez, 126 A.D.3d 549, 6 N.Y.S.3d 40 [1st Dept 2015]; Rosa v Mejia, 95 AD3d at 404).Page 5 However, plaintiff failed to submit any evidence as to sustaining permanent lo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT