From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

D'Amato v. Mandello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 2003
2 A.D.3d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Summary

granting summary judgment based on "plaintiff's medical experts fail[ure] to establish the duration of the alleged reduction in the plaintiff's cervical range of motion following the subject accident"

Summary of this case from Paduani v. Avila

Opinion

2003-04054.

Decided December 8, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated February 4, 2003, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Kushel Horvat, (Robert F. Horvat of counsel), for appellant.

Miller Eisenman, LLP, (Michael P. Eisenman of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SANDRA L. TOWNES, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

It is undisputed in this case that the plaintiff sustained disc herniations in the cervical spine before the accident occurred.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), thereby shifting the burden to the plaintiff to produce objective proof of a serious injury ( see Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). The affidavit of the plaintiff's medical expert was insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment. The medical expert did not indicate that he reviewed the actual MRI films taken before and after the subject accident in reaching his conclusion that "the impingement on the thecal sac and spinal cord at the C4-C5 level was increased" ( see Harney v. Tombstone Pizza Corp, 279 A.D.2d 609; Friedman v. U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 A.D.2d 266). In addition, the plaintiff's medical expert failed to establish the duration of the alleged reduction in the plaintiff's cervical range of motion following the subject accident ( see Beckett v. Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774).

FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO, TOWNES and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

D'Amato v. Mandello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 2003
2 A.D.3d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

granting summary judgment based on "plaintiff's medical experts fail[ure] to establish the duration of the alleged reduction in the plaintiff's cervical range of motion following the subject accident"

Summary of this case from Paduani v. Avila
Case details for

D'Amato v. Mandello

Case Details

Full title:MELISSA J. D'AMATO, respondent, v. MARC T. MANDELLO, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 8, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 894

Citing Cases

Zhang v. Wang

pondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs. The defendants' evidence, which consisted of the…

Woolard v. Puleo

Moreover, plaintiff's radiologist, Steven L. Mendelsohn, submits an affirmation in which he states that to…