From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sclafani v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 31, 2005
22 A.D.3d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-09108.

October 31, 2005.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants City of New York, New York City Department of Transportation, and Jose Raymond Rivera appeal, and the defendants Sam Zamoshchin and Sovereign Motor Cars, Ltd., separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated June 30, 2004, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath of counsel), for appellants City of New York, New York City Department of Transportation, and Jose Raymond Rivera.

Marshall and Bellard (Sweetbaum Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. [Marshall D. Sweetbaum] of counsel), for appellants Sam Zamoshchin and Sovereign Motor Cars, Ltd.

Baron Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Dhruv A. Dhavan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The affirmed medical reports of a neurologist and an orthopedist who examined the plaintiff approximately three years after the accident, and determined that he had no limitations or disabilities, sufficiently established a prima facie case for summary judgment in the defendants' favor ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 NY2d 955). However, the affirmation of the plaintiff's physician, who, on the basis of recent computerized range-of-motion testing, determined that the plaintiff had sustained restrictions in motion, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury ( see Kraemer v. Henning, 237 AD2d 492).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment.


Summaries of

Sclafani v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 31, 2005
22 A.D.3d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Sclafani v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY SCLAFANI, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Oct 31, 2005

Citations

22 A.D.3d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8101
803 N.Y.S.2d 182

Citing Cases

Ehresman v. Lincoln

Initially, the Court notes that the reports of Dr. Anto, which are based upon an examination and/or…

YAW AGYEN-KYEI v. SPANISH TRANSP. SERV. CORP.

Further, to qualify under the "consequential" or "significant" injury definition, the injury must be more…