From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bernardez v. Babou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 2011
83 A.D.3d 499 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 4776.

April 14, 2011.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about October 15, 2010, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Feinman Grossbard, P.C., White Plains (Steven N. Feinman of counsel), for appellants.

The Law Offices of Ross Legan Rosenberg Zelen Flaks, LLP, New York (Richard H. Rosenberg of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.


Defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden with respect to plaintiffs claim of permanent consequential and significant limitations in use of the lumbar spine, since their orthopedist did not find full range of motion and noted objective signs of injury upon examination ( see Feaster v Boulabat, 77 AD3d 440). Although the medical expert characterized plaintiffs response as subjective, there was no finding that her limitations were self-imposed or deliberate ( compare Mercado-Arif v Garcia, 74 AD3d 446), and she apparently complied with all other tests. Defendants did not submit any medical opinion concerning the cause of the claimed lumbar spine injury. Thus, we do not examine plaintiffs submissions in opposition ( Offman v Singh, 27 AD3d 284, 285).

Defendants also failed to meet their burden on the 90/180-day claim.


Summaries of

Bernardez v. Babou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 2011
83 A.D.3d 499 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Bernardez v. Babou

Case Details

Full title:AURELIA BERNARDEZ, Respondent, v. MAME Y. BABOU et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Apr 14, 2011

Citations

83 A.D.3d 499 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 2941
920 N.Y.S.2d 656

Citing Cases

Herman v. Moore

Defendants submitted the reports of their expert neurologist, Dr. Elkin, who examined plaintiff in 2010, and…

Daniello v. Dall Cab Corp.

These limitations represent a 33.34 per cent restriction in range of motion and are not "minor" as a matter…