Narducci v. McRae
| Decision Date | 15 October 2002 |
| Citation | 748 N.Y.S.2d 764,298 A.D.2d 443 |
| Parties | LEONARD A. NARDUCCI et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>SHARLENE McRAE, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The injured plaintiff and his wife brought the instant action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries the injured plaintiff allegedly sustained in a two-vehicle collision with the defendant. The injured plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries, among other things, to his cervical spine, lumbar spine, and right shoulder in the collision. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury in the collision (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]), submitting evidence, inter alia, that the injured plaintiff's injuries were not proximately caused by the subject accident. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff's right shoulder injury was proximately caused by the subject collision. Thereafter, the defendant moved for leave to renew her summary judgment motion. In support thereof, she submitted, among other things, the plaintiff's pleadings and deposition testimony from a prior, unrelated action, wherein he alleged that he had suffered an injury to his right shoulder. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the motion which was for leave to renew and, upon renewal, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was for leave to renew her prior motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 2221 [e]). In doing so, the Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in accepting the defendant's explanation of law office failure for her failure to submit certain evidence on her original motion for summary judgment (see Burgess v Brooklyn Jewish Hosp., 272 AD2d 285; CPLR 2005).
Moreover, upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The defendant established a prima facie case that the plaintiff's alleged injuries either were not serious, as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955), or were not proximately caused by the subject collision (see Williams v Hasenflue, 272 AD2d 470; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Bronx Merch. Funding Servs., LLC
...accident was mere speculation. See also Ginty v. MacNamara, 300 A.D.2d 624, 751 N.Y.S.2d 790 (2d Dep't. 2002); Narducci v. McRae, 298 A.D.2d 443, 748 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2d Dep't. 2002); Kallicharan v. Sooknanan, 282 A.D.2d 573, 723 N.Y.S.2d 376 (2d Dep't. 2001). In Gintv v. MacNamara, supra, the......
-
Damas v. Valdes
...530;Ifrach v. Neiman, 306 A.D.2d 380, 760 N.Y.S.2d 866;Ginty v. MacNamara, 300 A.D.2d 624, 625, 751 N.Y.S.2d 790;Narducci v. McRae, 298 A.D.2d 443, 444, 748 N.Y.S.2d 764;Kallicharan v. Sooknanan, 282 A.D.2d 573, 574, 723 N.Y.S.2d 376;Waaland v. Weiss, 228 A.D.2d 435, 643 N.Y.S.2d 635). Beca......
-
State Farm Fire v. Parking Sys. Valet Serv.
...2221; Nwauwa v. Mamos, 53 A.D.3d 646, 649, 862 N.Y.S.2d 110; Cruz v. Castanos, 10 A.D.3d 277, 278, 781 N.Y.S.2d 23; Narducci v. McRae, 298 A.D.2d 443, 443, 748 N.Y.S.2d 764). In his affirmation in support of the original motion, State Farm's attorney stated that Baron's deposition transcrip......
-
Davis v. Ogando
...and where "it was...clear that the plaintiff's examining physician was completely unaware" of subsequent accidents); Narducci v. McRae, 748 N.Y.S.2d 764, 765 (2d Dep't 2002) (finding that no triable issue of fact was raised as to whether the subject accident caused the injury where plaintif......