Dan v. Luke

2 Citing cases

  1. Thompson v. Abbasi

    15 A.D.3d 95 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 303 times

    Defendant NA Taxi established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence demonstrating that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury arising from a car accident involving the parties ( see Insurance Law ยง 5102 [d]; Licari v. Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Specifically, NA submitted affirmed reports of two medical doctors who, upon examining plaintiff, concluded that, although there were positive MRI findings of plaintiff's cervical spine, plaintiff had normal range of motion in his cervical spine as well as his lumbosacral spine and wrists ( see Noble v. Ackerman, 252 AD2d 392 [existence of herniated disc does not per se constitute serious injury]). In addition, NA submitted plaintiff's bill of particulars ( see Dan v. Luke, 237 AD2d 165), which indicates that plaintiff missed only one week of work following the accident. NA thus met its initial burden that plaintiff did not sustain an injury which prevented him from performing substantially all his customary activities during 90 of the first 180 days following the accident.

  2. Manrique v. Warshaw Woolen Assoc

    297 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 58 times

    Failure to meet the serious injury threshold requires the granting of summary judgment and the dismissal of the complaint (see Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 238, 240). Initially, we find that defendants met their burden by relying on plaintiff's amended bill of particulars and on a signed report of Dr. Nachamie, plaintiff's own doctor (see Dan v. Luke, 237 A.D.2d 165) . Notably, Dr. Nachamie found that plaintiff's feet and ankles, instead of being restricted in range of motion, moved "well and equally" and further observed that when plaintiff realized she was not being observed she walked "briskly." The report is also significant in its omission of any mention of scarring, any opinion that any of plaintiff's injuries were permanent in nature, any opinion that plaintiff's injuries were such that she was prevented from performing any of her usual and customary activities for not less that 90 days during the first 180 days immediately following the accident, or any finding that the injuries of which she complained were causally related to the accident.