Siemucha v. Garrison

• Decision Date: 15 November 2013
• Citation: 975 N.Y.S.2d 518,111 A.D.3d 1398,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 07608
• Parties: Paul SIEMUCHA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Robert D. GARRISON and Clarnell Henderson, Defendants–Appellants. (Appeal No. 1.).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

111 A.D.3d 1398

975 N.Y.S.2d 518

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 07608

Paul SIEMUCHA, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v. Robert D. GARRISON and Clarnell Henderson, Defendants–Appellants.(Appeal No. 1.).

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Nov. 15, 2013.

Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham & Coppola LLC, Buffalo (Joshua P. Rubin of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants.

Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP, Buffalo (John A. Collins of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS AND VALENTINO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when his vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by defendant Robert D. Garrison and owned by defendant Clarnell Henderson. Following a jury trial, the jury found that plaintiff sustained a significant limitation of use of a body function or system and awarded plaintiff $50,000 for past pain and suffering and $20,000 for future pain and suffering for five years. Supreme Court denied defendants' motion to set aside the verdict, and defendants now appeal.

The court properly denied defendants' pretrial motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). Although we agree with defendants that they met their initial burden, we conclude that plaintiff's submissions were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of serious injury ( see Vitez v. Shelton, 6 A.D.3d 1180, 1181–1182, 776 N.Y.S.2d 422; Hoffman v. Stechenfinger, 4 A.D.3d 778, 779, 772 N.Y.S.2d 432), the two categories pursued by plaintiff at trial. Defendants failed to preserve for our review their contention that the affirmed report of the chiropractor was not in admissible form ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 351 n. 3, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197; cf. Hartley v. White, 63 A.D.3d 1689, 1690, 881 N.Y.S.2d 583; Shinn v. Catanzaro, 1 A.D.3d 195, 197–198, 767 N.Y.S.2d 88). In any event, a plaintiff “may rely on unsworn reports and uncertified medical records if they were submitted by defendants ... or were referenced in the reports of physicians who examined plaintiff on their behalf, and [defendants] submitted the reports of their experts” (Feggins v. Fagard, 52 A.D.3d 1221, 1223, 860 N.Y.S.2d 346; see Brown v. Achy, 9 A.D.3d 30, 32, 776 N.Y.S.2d 56). Here, defendants' expert reviewed and referenced numerous medical records of plaintiff in his report, including the chiropractic records.

Plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact to defeat defendants' motion by submitting objective proof of spasm in his cervical spine ( see Austin v. Rent A Ctr., E., Inc., 90 A.D.3d 1542, 1544, 935 N.Y.S.2d 767), and proof showing quantitative restrictions in the range of motion in his cervical and lumbar spine ( see Hedgecock v. Pedro, 93 A.D.3d 1250, 1252, 940 N.Y.S.2d 432; Howard v. Robb, 78 A.D.3d 1589, 1590, 911 N.Y.S.2d 748; see generally Toure, 98 N.Y.2d at 350–351, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197). Finally, plaintiff submitted the opinions of two physicians who determined that plaintiff's cervical spine injury and the exacerbation of his lumbar spine injurywere causally related to the accident.

We reject defendants' contention that the court erred in precluding them from raising plaintiff's prior drug addiction and substance abuse at trial. Although the drug addiction and substance abuse were relevant to plaintiff's credibility ( see Simon v. Indursky, 211 A.D.2d 404, 404, 630 N.Y.S.2d 2; see generally Badr v. Hogan, 75 N.Y.2d 629, 634, 555 N.Y.S.2d 249, 554 N.E.2d 890), it is well settled that the nature and extent of cross-examination rests firmly with the trial court ( see Badr, 75 N.Y.2d at 634, 555 N.Y.S.2d 249, 554 N.E.2d 890; Bodensteiner v. Vannais, 167 A.D.2d 954, 954, 561 N.Y.S.2d 1017; see generally Salm v. Moses, 13 N.Y.3d 816, 817, 890 N.Y.S.2d 385, 918 N.E.2d 897). We perceive no abuse of discretion here inasmuch as, under the circumstances of this case, it would be more prejudicial than probative to allow such cross-examination. Defendants further contend that the evidence of plaintiff's drug use was relevant to the claim of loss of enjoyment of life and plaintiff's heart problems, but defendants' expert disclosure did not include those topics, and the court therefore properly precluded defendants from presenting such evidence at trial ( see generally Lidge v. Niagara Falls Mem. Med. Ctr. [Appeal No. 2], 17 A.D.3d 1033, 1035, 794 N.Y.S.2d 190). Likewise, the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding defendants' expert from testifying regarding his experience treating patients with pending litigation and a study concerning that subject matter inasmuch as those matters were not included in defendants' expert disclosure ( see generally id.).

Defendants contend that the court erred in denying their request at the commencement of trial to admit all of plaintiff's medical records in evidence pursuant to CPLR 3122–a (c). According to defendants, the records were automatically admissible because plaintiff raised no objection within 10 days of trial ( see id.). We reject that contention. Plaintiff's failure to object within 10 days before the trial waived any objection plaintiff had to the admissibility of the records as business records ( seeCPLR 3122–a [c]; 4518[a] ), but he did not waive any objection to their admissibility based on other rules of evidence ( see Afridi v. Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 571, 572, 854 N.Y.S.2d 446). Indeed, plaintiff properly objected at trial on relevancy grounds with respect to the admissibility of some of the records ( see Montes v. New York City Tr. Auth., 46 A.D.3d 121, 124, 843 N.Y.S.2d 622; Bostic v. State of New York, 232 A.D.2d 837, 839, 649 N.Y.S.2d 200, lv. denied89 N.Y.2d 807, 655 N.Y.S.2d 887, 678 N.E.2d 500).

We further conclude that the court did not abuse its broad discretion in subsequently ruling on the admissibility of certain medical records when defendants again sought to admit such records in evidence during cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses and during their direct case ( see Gerbino v. Tinseltown USA, 13 A.D.3d 1068, 1070, 788 N.Y.S.2d 538). The court properly refused to admit the records concerning plaintiff's cardiac issues inasmuch as they were not mentioned in defendants' expert disclosure ( see Lidge, 17 A.D.3d at 1035, 794 N.Y.S.2d 190). The records concerning plaintiff's knee injuries were not relevant inasmuch as plaintiff testified that he was not claiming an injury to his knee as a result of the motor vehicle accident. The records from plaintiff's former employer were relevant to the issue of plaintiff's credibility, but the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit such records on that collateral issue ( see Coopersmith v. Gold, 89 N.Y.2d 957, 959–960, 655 N.Y.S.2d 857, 678 N.E.2d 469, rearg. denied89 N.Y.2d 1086, 659 N.Y.S.2d 860, 681 N.E.2d 1307, rearg. dismissed90 N.Y.2d 889, 661 N.Y.S.2d 833, 684 N.E.2d 283; Restey v. Higgins, 252 A.D.2d 954, 956, 675 N.Y.S.2d 725). Plaintiff did not object to the admission of the portions of the records from the Niagara Falls Memorial...