From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Semonian v. Seidenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 26, 2010
71 A.D.3d 1562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. CA 09-01823.

March 26, 2010.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (James H. Dillon, J.), entered June 1, 2009 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of defendants for summary judgment.

CHELUS, HERDZIK, SPEYER MONTE, P.C., BUFFALO (KEVIN E. LOFTUS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

HOGAN WILLIG, LOCKPORT (NORTON T. LOWE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

Present: Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lindley and Green, JJ.


It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Richard D. Semonian (plaintiff) when the vehicle that he was driving was struck by a vehicle operated by defendant Janice O. Seidenberg and owned by defendant the Buffalo News, Inc. We agree with defendants that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We conclude that defendants met their initial burden of establishing that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) in the instant accident but instead suffers from a "diffuse degenerative disease of his cervical spine which is causing cervical stenosis." Plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact to defeat the motion, particularly in view of their failure to offer a reasonable explanation for the 16-month gap in plaintiffs treatment ( see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 572; McConnell v Freeman, 52 AD3d 1190; McCarthy v Bellamy, 39 AD3d 1166). We also note that plaintiff admitted that, during the 16-month period in question, he continued to work on a full-time basis, moonlighted as a security guard, and exercised regularly by lifting weights and jogging. We thus conclude under the circumstances of this case that the court erred in denying defendants' motion.


Summaries of

Semonian v. Seidenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 26, 2010
71 A.D.3d 1562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Semonian v. Seidenberg

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD D. SEMONIAN et al., Respondents, v. JANICE O. SEIDENBERG et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 26, 2010

Citations

71 A.D.3d 1562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 2610
896 N.Y.S.2d 916

Citing Cases

Smyth v. McDonald

Plaintiff asserted that she chose not to engage in the pain management program because she thought that she…