Summers v. Spada

Decision Date27 September 2013
Citation109 A.D.3d 1192,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 06198,971 N.Y.S.2d 773
PartiesGlenn B. SUMMERS, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Peter A. SPADA and Barbara Ann Spada, Defendants–Appellants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

109 A.D.3d 1192
971 N.Y.S.2d 773
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 06198

Glenn B. SUMMERS, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
Peter A. SPADA and Barbara Ann Spada, Defendants–Appellants.

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

Sept. 27, 2013.



Adams, Hanson, Rego, Carlin, Hughes, Kaplan & Fishbein, Williamsville (Bethany A. Rubin of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants.

Magavern Magavern Grimm LLP, Buffalo (Thomas J. Lang of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.


PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

[109 A.D.3d 1192]Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when the vehicle he was driving collided with a vehicle owned by defendant Barbara Ann Spada and operated by defendant Peter A. Spada. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the

[971 N.Y.S.2d 774]

complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). We note at the outset that, although plaintiff failed to allege in his bill of particulars that he sustained a serious injury under any of the categories set forth in the statute, the parties addressed the permanent consequential limitation of use, significant limitation of use and 90/180–day categories in their motion papers and briefs on appeal, and we likewise address those categories.

Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Defendants' own submissions in support of the motion raise triable issues of fact whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories. The physician who conducted independent medical examinations of plaintiff concurred with the reports of imaging studies of plaintiff's spine, which provided the requisite objective evidence of injury ( see generally Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 350, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197), and he further provided a “designation of a numeric percentage of ... plaintiff's loss of range of motion [that] can be used to substantiate a claim of serious injury” ( id.;see Matte v. Hall, 20 A.D.3d 898, 899, 798 N.Y.S.2d 829). The physician's conclusion that the abnormalities in plaintiff's [109 A.D.3d 1193]imaging studies are age-related and unrelated to the accident is inconsistent with his contemporaneous conclusion that plaintiff “has no medical condition not related to the accident” and is thus insufficient to establish defendants' entitlement to judgment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Williams v. Jones
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 6, 2016
    ...921, 922, 741 N.Y.S.2d 815, quoting Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 236, 455 N.Y.S.2d 570, 441 N.E.2d 1088 ; see Summers v. Spada, 109 A.D.3d 1192, 1193, 971 N.Y.S.2d 773 ; Zeigler, 5 A.D.3d at 1081, 774 N.Y.S.2d 211 ; Cummings v. Riedy, 4 A.D.3d 811, 813, 771 N.Y.S.2d 629 ). We cannot ag......
  • Habir v. Wilczak
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 5, 2021
    ...; see generally Gawron v. Town of Cheektowaga , 125 A.D.3d 1467, 1468, 4 N.Y.S.3d 789 [4th Dept. 2015] ; Summers v. Spada , 109 A.D.3d 1192, 1193, 971 N.Y.S.2d 773 [4th Dept. 2013] ). In any event, defendant raised a triable issue of fact by submitting an affirmation of a radiologist who op......
  • Cline v. Code
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 22, 2019
    ...serious injury (see generally Monterro v. Klein, 160 A.D.3d 1459, 1460, 72 N.Y.S.3d 880 [4th Dept. 2018] ; Summers v. Spada, 109 A.D.3d 1192, 1192, 971 N.Y.S.2d 773 [4th Dept. 2013] ). In any event, even if we assume, arguendo, that plaintiff satisfied her prima facie burden, defendant's su......
  • Crewe v. Pisanova
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 2, 2015
    ...issues of fact with respect to those categories (see Thomas v. Huh, 115 A.D.3d 1225, 1225, 982 N.Y.S.2d 634 ; Summers v. Spada, 109 A.D.3d 1192, 1192, 971 N.Y.S.2d 773 ). Defendants' expert opined that plaintiff did not have a serious injury within the meaning of those two categories, based......
  • 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