From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cekic v. Zapata

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 14, 2010
69 A.D.3d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 1981.

January 14, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered April 23, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, as limited by the briefs, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Ginsberg Broome, P.C., New York (Robert M. Ginsberg of counsel), for appellants.

Votto Cassata, LLP, Staten Island (Christopher J. Albee of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., McGuire, Moskowitz, Freedman and Román, JJ.


Defendant met his initial burden by submitting the affirmed report of experts who examined plaintiffs and concluded, based upon objective tests conducted, that neither had suffered a permanent consequential limitation or a significant limitation of his/her lumbar or cervical spine as a result of the subject September 25, 2005 motor vehicle accident.

Although plaintiff Asim Cekic came forward with objective medical evidence of a limitation, such evidence is unavailing due to a failure to distinguish between injuries from the subject accident and those from two prior accidents ( see Pommells v. Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 572). Moreover, Asim Cekic's doctor's conclusory statement in January 2009 that his neck and back injuries were related to the subject accident is contradicted by the findings in the doctor's March 12, 2004 report which found a permanent partial disability resulting from a prior accident on August 12, 2003 ( see Depena v. Sylla, 63 AD3d 504, lv denied 13 NY3d 706; Thompson v. Abbasi, 15 AD3d 95, 99).

Plaintiff Almera Cekic's doctor presented evidence of a limited range of motion, but no evidence of any treatment after one year. Plaintiff Almera Cekic testified that she had stopped seeing the doctor — giving a myriad of reasons — approximately one year prior to being deposed in this action, i.e., two years prior to her August 2008 re-examination. Such a cessation in treatment, without a consistent explanation, severs the causal connection between her injuries and the accident three years earlier ( Pommells at 580; Gonzalez v. A.V. Managing, Inc., 37 AD3d 175).

[Prior Case History: 23 Misc 3d 1119(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 50838(U).]


Summaries of

Cekic v. Zapata

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 14, 2010
69 A.D.3d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Cekic v. Zapata

Case Details

Full title:ASIM CEKIC et al., Appellants, v. CARLOS E. ZAPATA, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 14, 2010

Citations

69 A.D.3d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 298
895 N.Y.S.2d 334

Citing Cases

Vila v. Foxglove Taxi Corp.

Moreover, plaintiff's excuse of inability to pay due to lack of no-fault insurance "makes no sense" in this…

Sarita v. Jimenez

Conspicuously absent from plaintiff's submissions was any documentation of the physical therapy and…