From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Petinrin v. Levering

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 12, 2005
17 A.D.3d 173 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

5842.

April 12, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered February 27, 2004, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

George T. Delaney, Mt. Kisco, for appellants.

Abrams, Gorelick, Friedman Jacobson, LLP, New York (Gail J. McNally of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.


Plaintiffs' submissions with respect to their claimed cervical and lumbar spine limitations suffer from the lack of any contemporaneous qualitative evidence of such restriction. Although each plaintiff was examined shortly after the accident and found to have limitations, Dr. Francois' initial reports fail to quantify any such limitations. Dr. Francois only purports to quantify plaintiffs' limitations in a reevaluation some 2½ years later, without any explanation for the time gap.

The limitations described by the chiropractors are contained in unsworn and therefore inadmissible reports. In addition, plaintiffs' own testimony failed to support the conclusion that their injuries caused a significant limitation in their activities where, inter alia, each returned to work within one to three weeks. In the absence of admissible contemporaneous evidence of serious injury, plaintiffs' proffered conclusions are insufficient ( see Toulson v. Young Han Pae, 13 AD3d 317).


Summaries of

Petinrin v. Levering

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 12, 2005
17 A.D.3d 173 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Petinrin v. Levering

Case Details

Full title:CHARLOTTE PETINRIN et al., Appellants, v. FRANKLIN M. LEVERING, JR.…

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

Date published: Apr 12, 2005

Citations

17 A.D.3d 173 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
794 N.Y.S.2d 12

Citing Cases

Martinez v. McKenzie

Dr. Francois only purports to quantify plaintiff's limitations in a reevaluation some 2½ years later, without…

Williams v. Burkett

The first quantification of restriction by plaintiff's doctor took place at an examination three years after…