From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Neal v. Cancilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 3, 2002
294 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

CA 01-02485

May 3, 2002.

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Rath, Jr., J.) entered September 10, 2001, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment.

CHELUS, HERDZIK, SPEYER, MONTE PAJAK, P.C., BUFFALO (MATTHEW A. LENHARD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

ROSENTHAL, SIEGEL, MUENKEL MALONEY, LLP, BUFFALO (PAUL F. MURAK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HURLBUTT, BURNS, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.


It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Plaintiff was injured when the van in which she was a passenger was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by defendant Matt Cancilla and owned by defendant Nanette Cancilla. Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiff alleged in her bill of particulars that she sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature that prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts that constitute her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident ( see id.). Defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that there was no "objective medical evidence to support [plaintiff's] claim of serious injury" ( Brown v. Wagg, 280 A.D.2d 891, 891, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 711). Defendants relied on, inter alia, the medical notes of plaintiff's treating physician, but those notes set forth objective medical evidence such as spasms and observations of actual, quantified limitations of motion ( see Nitti v. Clerrico, 291 A.D.2d 807; Testa v. Allen, 289 A.D.2d 958). Contrary to defendants' further contention, the deposition testimony of plaintiff does not establish as a matter of law that she was not "curtailed from performing [her] usual activities to a great extent rather than some slight curtailment" for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident ( Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 236).


Summaries of

O'Neal v. Cancilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 3, 2002
294 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

O'Neal v. Cancilla

Case Details

Full title:AMANDA O'NEAL, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MATT CANCILLA AND NANETTE…

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

Date published: May 3, 2002

Citations

294 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
741 N.Y.S.2d 815

Citing Cases

Vail v. Delamo

Plaintiff's physician also averred that he considered plaintiff disabled from all of her normal daily…

Halsey v. Rochester-Genesee Reg. Tr. Auth

We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant's motion on that ground. Defendant failed to meet…