From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heumann v. JACO Transportation, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 22, 2011
82 A.D.3d 1046 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 2010-10668.

March 22, 2011.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated September 23, 2010, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Lewis Johs Avallone Aviles, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Michael G. Kruzynski and Seth M. Weinberg of counsel), for appellants.

Rubin Licatesi, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Joseph Aufenanger of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin, Lott and Miller, JJ.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident ( see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957).

In opposition to the defendants' motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff primarily relied upon the affirmation of her treating hand surgeon, Dr. Alan M. Freedman. The defendants' examining physician, Dr. Thomas Joseph Palmieri, unequivocally found that the plaintiffs complained-of injuries to her right hand were not causally related to the subject accident. Dr. Freedman merely opined that the plaintiffs "right trigger finger condition may have been caused or exacerbated by the automobile accident in which she was involved in January 3, 2007." This speculative language was not sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d at 957-958; Nieues v Michael, 73 AD3d 716, 716).

Moreover, although Dr. Freedman noted in his "Chart Note" dated January 4, 2007, that the plaintiffs "[r]ange of motion [of her right wrist] is limited by pain," he failed to set forth any quantitative or qualitative evaluation of the extent of the reported limitation ( see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d at 350-351; Dufel v Green, 84 NY2d 795, 798). "Without such contemporaneous findings, the plaintiff could not have raised a triable issue of fact under the permanent loss, permanent consequential limitation of use, or the significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d)" ( Nieves v Michael, 73 AD3d at 717).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Summaries of

Heumann v. JACO Transportation, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 22, 2011
82 A.D.3d 1046 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Heumann v. JACO Transportation, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CLAUDIA HEUMANN, Respondent, v. JACO TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 22, 2011

Citations

82 A.D.3d 1046 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 2352
919 N.Y.S.2d 198

Citing Cases

Westgate v. Jie Yuan Huang

As here, there are differing various of how the accident happened, or even if the accident happened at all,…

Osias v. Kwinter

However, evidence of contemporaneous range of motion limitations is not a prerequisite to recovery (see Perl…