From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peschanker v. Loporto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 6, 1998
252 A.D.2d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

July 6, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover damages for personal injuries which he allegedly suffered when the vehicle that he was driving was struck by a vehicle owned by the defendant M J Fish, Inc., and operated by the defendant Mike A. Loporto. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury in the collision ( see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). The Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.

The defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury in the collision ( see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Flanagan v. Hoeg, 212 A.D.2d 756). The report of Dr. David J. Panasci, who reviewed the magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) of the plaintiff's lumbar spine for the defendants, should not have been considered because he did not affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of the report were true ( see, Parisi v. Levine, 246 A.D.2d 583; Moore v. Tappen, 242 A.D.2d 526; Reeves v. Scopaz, 227 A.D.2d 606).

Moreover, Dr. Robert J. Orlandi, who examined the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants, stated that objective medical tests "which normally do not produce back pain, produced moderate back pain in [the plaintiff] ", and that the plaintiff has "a chronic ongoing back disorder". Although Dr. Orlandi concluded that this condition was not causally related to the accident, that opinion was impermissibly based upon the inadmissible MRI report of Dr. Panasci ( see, Friedman v. U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 A.D.2d 266, 267).

Because neither Dr. Orlandi's report nor the remainder of the defendants' evidence excludes the possibility that the plaintiff suffered a serious injury in the accident, the defendants are not entitled to summary judgment ( see, Mendola v. Demetres, 212 A.D.2d 515; Feuerman v. Achtar, 246 A.D.2d 577; Mastromonica v. Conklin, 246 A.D.2d 581; Fouad v. Riser, 246 A.D.2d 508).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Peschanker v. Loporto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 6, 1998
252 A.D.2d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Peschanker v. Loporto

Case Details

Full title:YEFIM PESCHANKER, Respondent, v. MIKE A. LOPORTO et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jul 6, 1998

Citations

252 A.D.2d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
675 N.Y.S.2d 363

Citing Cases

Schuster v. Vespermann

In the instant action, the reports of the independent examining physicians do not exclude the possibility…

Capozzola v. Ford Credit Titling Trust

By failing to compare the results that were reported to the normal range, or by failing to quantify their…