From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Figueroa v. Westbury Trans, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 14, 2003
304 A.D.2d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-04030

Submitted March 19, 2003.

April 14, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurkin-Torres, J.), dated April 1, 2002, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Taller Wizman, P.C., (Ephrem Wertenteil, New York, N.Y. of counsel), for appellants.

Johnson Liebman, New York, N.Y. (Charles D. Liebman of counsel), for respondents.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion, the defendants submitted the affirmed medical reports of their examining orthopedist and neurologist, which stated that, upon examination, both plaintiffs had full range of motion in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbosacral spines, and each plaintiff's neurological examination indicated that his condition was normal. This proof was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury as a result of the accident despite evidence of bulging and herniated discs (see Elfiky v. Harris, 301 A.D.2d 624; Fauk v. Jenkins, 301 A.D.2d 564; Duldulao v. City of New York, 284 A.D.2d 296, 297).

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs submitted the affirmations of a physician, which improperly relied upon the unsworn medical reports of another physician (see Rozengauz v. Lok Wing Ha, 280 A.D.2d 534, 535; Decayette v. Kreger Truck Renting, 260 A.D.2d 342, 343; Merisca v. Alford, 243 A.D.2d 613, 614). Those affirmations failed to provide evidence of the extent or degree of the plaintiffs' physical limitations and their duration (see Barbeito v. Kesev Taxi, 281 A.D.2d 379, 380; Zuckerman v. Karagjozi, 247 A.D.2d 536; Beckett v. Conte, 176 A.D.2d 774) or a qualitative assessment of the plaintiffs' conditions (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345).

FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Figueroa v. Westbury Trans, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 14, 2003
304 A.D.2d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Figueroa v. Westbury Trans, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MIGUEL FIGUEROA, ET AL., appellants, v. WESTBURY TRANS, INC., ET AL.…

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

Date published: Apr 14, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 756

Citing Cases

Suarez v. Tertipis

Moreover, to the extent that Dr. Koyen relied upon an unsworn records of Dr. Futoran, his conclusions are…

SHAMANSKAYA v. MA

In support of this claim, defendant cites to a state law case which in fact seems to hold that a physician's…