From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ubozoh v. Mueller

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 12, 2022
204 A.D.3d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

Opinion

15694 Index No. 26237/17 Case No. 2021–00321

04-12-2022

Chizorom UBOZOH, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Bruce Mark MUELLER, et al., Defendants–Appellants, Garcia Delacruz, et al., Defendants.

Carman, Callahan & Ingham, LLP, Farmingdale (Lauren M. Mazzara of counsel), for Bruce Mark Mueller, appellant. Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Woodbury (Sarah M. Ziolkowski of counsel), for Trevor M. John, appellant.


Carman, Callahan & Ingham, LLP, Farmingdale (Lauren M. Mazzara of counsel), for Bruce Mark Mueller, appellant.

Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Woodbury (Sarah M. Ziolkowski of counsel), for Trevor M. John, appellant.

Renwick, J.P., Friedman, Moulton, Mendez, Pitt, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered on or about August 27, 2020, which denied defendants Bruce Mark Mueller and Trevor M. John's motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Upon plaintiff's failure to comply with the portion of a self-executing preclusion order directing her to provide defendants with a bill of particulars and HIPAA-compliant medical authorizations within a specified time, the order became absolute and precluded plaintiff from offering evidence as to any of her alleged injuries or other damages (see Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 N.Y.3d 74, 82, 917 N.Y.S.2d 68, 942 N.E.2d 277 [2010] ; Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 116 A.D.3d 648, 648, 987 N.Y.S.2d 15 [1st Dept. 2014] ). Since plaintiff cannot offer medical evidence of her alleged injuries, she will not be able to meet her threshold burden of showing that she sustained a serious injury as a result of the motor vehicle accident, as required under Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 237–238, 455 N.Y.S.2d 570, 441 N.E.2d 1088 [1982] ). As a result, plaintiff will not be able to make a prima facie case, and the complaint should be dismissed in its entirety (see Diaz v. Maygina Realty LLC, 181 A.D.3d 478, 479, 117 N.Y.S.3d 848 [1st Dept. 2020] ; Henry v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 159 A.D.3d 494, 495, 73 N.Y.S.3d 147 [1st Dept. 2018] ; see also Vecchiano v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 135 A.D.2d 708, 708, 522 N.Y.S.2d 608 [2d Dept. 1987], lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 803, 527 N.Y.S.2d 769, 522 N.E.2d 1067 [1988] ).


Summaries of

Ubozoh v. Mueller

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 12, 2022
204 A.D.3d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
Case details for

Ubozoh v. Mueller

Case Details

Full title:Chizorom UBOZOH, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Bruce Mark MUELLER, et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 12, 2022

Citations

204 A.D.3d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
164 N.Y.S.3d 442

Citing Cases

Platovsky v. Bernstein

(Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3126:10). Significantly, a…

1515 Macombs LLC v. C.V.

Those circumstances might require dismissal. (see Ubozoh v Mueller, 204 A.D.3d 485 [1st Dept 2022] (Since…