From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seidel v. Rabassa

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 5, 2019
170 A.D.3d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

8595 Index 307515/13

03-05-2019

Chelsea SEIDEL, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, Sarah Auslander, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. David RABASSA, et al., Defendants–Respondents, William Seidel, Defendant.

Joseph I. Orlian, P.C., New York (Justin D. Branlel of counsel), for appellant. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., Brooklyn (Robert D. Grace of counsel), for respondents.


Joseph I. Orlian, P.C., New York (Justin D. Branlel of counsel), for appellant.

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

Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Gische, Kahn, Kern, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J., entered on or about October 26, 2017, which, in this action for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, granted the motion of defendants David Rabassa and Fakhar Chowdury for summary judgment dismissing the complaint of plaintiff Sarah Auslander (Auslander), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that Auslander did not sustain a serious injury causally related to the accident. Defendants submitted, inter alia, the emergency room report, CT scans and the reports of a neurologist, a plastic surgeon and an otolaryngologist, all of who examined Auslander and found that she did not sustain a serious injury within the purview of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

In opposition, Auslander submitted objective medical evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a nasal fracture (see Lavy v. Zaman , 95 A.D.3d 585, 944 N.Y.S.2d 94 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Her plastic surgeon, who performed a nasal endoscopy, diagnosed a slight nasal fracture, which he observed during the procedure. His report and affidavit were based on the procedure he performed and his observations, and were sufficient objective medical evidence to support his opinion (see O'Sullivan v. Atrium Bus Co. , 246 A.D.2d 418, 668 N.Y.S.2d 167 [1st Dept. 1998] ).


Summaries of

Seidel v. Rabassa

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 5, 2019
170 A.D.3d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Seidel v. Rabassa

Case Details

Full title:Chelsea Seidel, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, Sarah Auslander…

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

Date published: Mar 5, 2019

Citations

170 A.D.3d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 1535
93 N.Y.S.3d 560

Citing Cases

Ilboudo v. Rigo Limo-Auto. Corp.

In opposition, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a left knee patella…

Hanniford v Carrasco

It is apparent that plaintiff did not sustain a fracture in the subject accident. Plaintiff s medical…