From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Acosta v. Traore

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 16, 2016
136 A.D.3d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

252 303080/11.

02-16-2016

Awilda ACOSTA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Moussa TRAORE, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Bailly and McMillan, LLP, White Plains (Keith J. McMillan of counsel), for appellant. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., Brooklyn (Robert D. Grace of counsel), for respondents.


Bailly and McMillan, LLP, White Plains (Keith J. McMillan of counsel), for appellant.

Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., Brooklyn (Robert D. Grace of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered September 25, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to plaintiff's inability to demonstrate that she suffered a serious injury to her left knee within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the affirmed report of an orthopedic surgeon who opined that the condition of plaintiff's left knee was degenerative in nature, and by relying on plaintiff's medical records, which contained similar findings of arthritis and degeneration (see Alvarez v. NYLL Mgt. Ltd., 120 A.D.3d 1043, 993 N.Y.S.2d 1 1st Dept.2014, affd. 24 N.Y.3d 1191, 3 N.Y.S.3d 757, 27 N.E.3d 471 2015; Galarza v. J.N. Eaglet Publ. Group, Inc., 117 A.D.3d 488, 985 N.Y.S.2d 494 1st Dept.2014 ).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to causation. Her treating orthopedic surgeon did not adequately refute or address the findings of preexisting degeneration found in plaintiff's own medical records, or explain how the accident, rather than her preexisting arthritis or obesity, was the cause of the alleged injury to plaintiff's left knee (see Alvarez, 120 A.D.3d at 1044, 993 N.Y.S.2d 1; Nicholas v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 116 A.D.3d 567, 984 N.Y.S.2d 332 1st Dept.2014; Batista v. Porro, 110 A.D.3d 609, 973 N.Y.S.2d 213 1st Dept.2013 ).


Summaries of

Acosta v. Traore

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 16, 2016
136 A.D.3d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Acosta v. Traore

Case Details

Full title:Awilda Acosta, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Moussa Traore, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 16, 2016

Citations

136 A.D.3d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
24 N.Y.S.3d 652
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 1135

Citing Cases

Rosario v. Gonzalez

Although her orthopedic surgeon found recent limitations in range of motion of her right knee that could be…

Morrison v. Santana

In any event, plaintiff's expert's last measurement of only about an eight-degree deficit in range of motion…