Winters v. Cruz
Decision Date | 01 December 2011 |
Citation | 933 N.Y.S.2d 551,90 A.D.3d 412,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08671 |
Parties | Walter WINTERS, et al., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Ramon L. CRUZ, et al., Defendants–Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mead, Hecht, Conklin & Gallagher, LLP, White Plains (Elizabeth M. Hecht of counsel), for appellants.
Morton J. Sealove, New York, for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth González, J.), entered May 27, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.
Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the injury to plaintiff's right knee was not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). Defendants submitted, inter alia, affirmed reports from a radiologist and an orthopedist, showing a healed right knee contusion and a preexisting condition of degenerative arthritis, which diagnosis was previously documented in the medical records of plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon ( see Spencer v. Golden Eagle, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 589, 590–591, 920 N.Y.S.2d 24 [2011] ). Plaintiff had surgery on his left knee weeks before the accident, and received a steroid injection to the right knee at the same time.
In opposition, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact with his expert's affirmation stating that the trauma of the automobile accident, and not the degeneration, caused his knee injury ( see Torain v. Bah, 78 A.D.3d 588, 913 N.Y.S.2d 27 [2010] ). However, he failed to set forth any contemporaneous or recent limitations sustained as a result of that trauma ( see generally Thompson v. Abbasi, 15 A.D.3d 95, 97–98, 788 N.Y.S.2d 48 [2005] ). The limitations the expert did note relative to plaintiff's knee were not compared with the standards for normal ranges of motion, and thus, his report was deficient ( see Soho v. Konate, 85 A.D.3d 522, 523, 925 N.Y.S.2d 456 [2011] ). Moreover, during a post-surgery examination, the expert found improved range of motion, and no evidence is submitted of current quantitative or qualitative restriction.
The record further demonstrates that there are no triable issues with respect to plaintiff's 90/180–day claim. The orthopedist's statement that plaintiff was “totally...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Horman
...shoulder following the accident ( see Canelo v. Genolg Tr., Inc., 82 A.D.3d 584, 585, 919 N.Y.S.2d 27 [2011];see also Winters v. Cruz, 90 A.D.3d 412, 933 N.Y.S.2d 551 [2011] ). Moreover, the existence of a tear in a shoulder ligament and of bulging and herniated discs is not evidence of ser......
-
Bailey v. Islam
...any evidence of limitations, contemporaneous or recent, so as to defeat summary judgment as to this claim ( see Winters v. Cruz, 90 A.D.3d 412, 933 N.Y.S.2d 551 [1st Dept.2011] ). Defendants also met their burden with respect to plaintiffs' 90/180–day claim by submitting plaintiff's deposit......
-
Brand v. Evangelista
...to perform his usual daily tasks. Therefore, plaintiff failed to satisfy the 90/180–day category ( see Winters v. Cruz, 90 A.D.3d 412, 413, 933 N.Y.S.2d 551 [1st Dept. 2011] ...
-
O'Neill v. Arnold
...that she had pain and restrictions approximately soon after the accident, and recently upon a July 2013 examination (See Winters v Cruz, 90 A.D.3d 412 [1st Dept. 2011]). Dr. Tyorkin's affirmation, stating that he reviewed the Plaintiff's hospital records, examined her approximately three we......