Summary
finding limitation insignificant where plaintiff's ROM was normal three months after the accident
Summary of this case from Heisler v. MPT New York, Inc.Opinion
June 7, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the defendants Richard J. Brady and Lione Express, Inc., and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.
Any assessment of the "significance" of a bodily limitation necessarily requires consideration not only of the extent or degree of the limitation but of its duration as well (Partlow v Meehan, 155 A.D.2d 647). In this case, the report of Dr. Wani, which indicated that the plaintiff's range of motion was normal less than three months after the accident, negated any claim of significant limitation (Partlow v. Meehan, supra; see also, Thrall v. City of Syracuse, 60 N.Y.2d 950). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Eiber, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.