Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Edgardo L. RIVERA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SUPER STAR LEASING, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered February 20, 2008, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants, through the affirmed reports of a radiologist, orthopedic surgeon and neurologist, made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment regarding plaintiff's claim of serious injury on the theory of “permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member” (Insurance Law § 5102[d] ).
However, plaintiff's expert raised a triable issue of fact on this theory of serious injury. Plaintiff's expert, who reviewed the relevant medical records and examined plaintiff as recently as September 2007, provided both quantitative and qualitative range of motion limitations in his report. He opined that plaintiff's symptoms were caused by the accident, and concluded that plaintiff had sustained permanent consequential limitation of use of his cervical and lumbar spine and right shoulder (see Garner v. Tong, 27 A.D.3d 401, 811 N.Y.S.2d 400 [2006]; Gonzalez v. Vasquez, 301 A.D.2d 438, 754 N.Y.S.2d 7 [2003] ). To the extent the expert incorporated into his affirmation several unsworn reports of other doctors who examined plaintiff, these unsworn reports were not the only evidence submitted by plaintiff in opposition to the motion, and may be considered to deny a motion for summary judgment (see e.g. Largotta v. Recife Realty Co., 254 A.D.2d 225, 679 N.Y.S.2d 141 [1998] ).
Furthermore, the motion court properly concluded that defendants failed to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on plaintiff's 90/180-day claim. Defendants' experts did not examine plaintiff until approximately two years after the accident and could offer no conclusions regarding plaintiff's condition in the 180 days following the accident (see Loesburg v. Jovanovic, 264 A.D.2d 301, 694 N.Y.S.2d 362 [1999] ).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 11, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)