Onishi v. N & B Taxi, Inc.
Decision Date | 29 May 2008 |
Docket Number | 3686. |
Parties | TAKAHISA ONISHI et al., Respondents, v. N & B TAXI, INC., et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's 90/180-day claim based upon the revelation in plaintiff's deposition testimony and bill of particulars that he stayed home from work for only 11 days after the accident (see Guadalupe v Blondie Limo, Inc., 43 AD3d 669 [2007]). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he was incapacitated from performing all of his usual and customary activities for at least 90 out of 180 days following the accident. Although he testified that he was advised by his physicians to refrain from landscaping and heavy lifting, and that he was somewhat restricted in the activities of his daily living, such evidence is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained a "90/180" injury (Thompson v Abbasi, 15 AD3d 95, 101 [2005]; see also Gorden v Tibulcio, 50 AD3d 460, 463-464 [2008]).
However, with regard to plaintiff's claim of permanent injury, the motion was properly denied. Defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing that claim by submitting, among other things, the affirmed report of their expert who examined plaintiff. Contrary to the finding of Supreme Court, the mere fact that defendants' expert did not address findings in diagnostic and operative reports indicating that plaintiff had a herniated disc does not mean that defendants failed to meet their initial burden. A herniated disc, by itself, is insufficient to constitute a "serious injury"; rather, to constitute such an injury, a herniated disc must be accompanied by objective evidence of the extent of alleged physical limitations resulting from the herniated disc (Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]; Servones v Toribio, 20 AD3d 330 [2005]; Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45, 49-50 [2005]). Thus, we recently rejected the notion that a defendant cannot meet its initial burden on summary judgment of demonstrating the absence of "serious injury" where the defendant's expert fails to address diagnostic reports indicating that the plaintiff has herniated or bulging disks (Style v Joseph, 32 AD3d 212 [2006]; see Santana v Khan, 48 AD3d 318 [2008]).
Nix v Yang Gao Xiang (19 AD3d 227 [2005]), cited by Supreme Court, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Balkaran v. Shapiro-Shellaby
...that plaintiff did not sustain a permanent or significant limitation of functioning from the collision. Qnishi v. N & B Taxi, Inc., 51 A.D.3d 594, 595 (1st Dep't 2008); Santana v. Khan, 48 A.D.3d 318 (1st Dep't 2008); Style v. Joseph, 32 A.D.3d 212, 214 (1st Dep't 2006); Servones v. Toribio......
-
Ruisi v. Parrott, INDEX NO. 13842/09
...v. Goss, 863 N.Y.S.2d 205 (1st Dept. 2008); Rodriguez v. Virga, 24 A.D.3d 650, 808 N.Y.S2d 373 (2d Dept. 2005); Onishi v. N&B Taxi Inc., 51 A.D.3d 594, 858 N.Y.S.2d 171 (1 st Dept. 2008)). The New York State courts have consistently held that where pretrial evidence establishes that the pla......
-
Park v. Pastore
...943, 892 N.Y.S.2d 128 (2d Dept. 2009); Rodriguez v. Virga, 24 A.D.3d 650, 808 N.Y.S2d 373 (2d Dept. 2005); Onishi v. N & B Taxi Inc., 51 A.D.3d 594, 858 N.Y.S.2d 171 (1st Dept. 2008); Thompson v. Ahbasi, 15 A.D.3d 95, 788 N.Y.S.2d 48 (1st Dept. 2005)). The New York State courts have consist......
-
Bermudez v. Jording
...863 N.Y.S.2d 205 (1st Dept. 2008); Rodriguez v. Virga, 24 A.D.3d 650, 808 N.Y.S2d 373 (2d Dept. 2005); Onishi v. N&B Taxi Inc., 51 A.D.3d 594, 858 N.Y.S.2d 171 (1st Dept. 2008)). The New York State courts have consistently held that where pretrial evidence establishes that the Plaintiff was......