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.
Guillermo COLON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bernardo TAVARES, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered August 5, 2008, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.
Neither of plaintiff's experts address defendants' admittedly sufficient prima facie showing that plaintiff's allegedly partially disabling spine and shoulder conditions revealed in MRIs taken shortly after the accident were due to preexisting, degenerative changes unrelated to any traumatic injury that could be attributed to the accident. Accordingly, no issue of fact exists as to whether the accident caused a permanent or significant loss or limitation (see Pommells v. Perez, 4 N.Y.3d 566, 577-578, 579-580, 797 N.Y.S.2d 380, 830 N.E.2d 278 [2005]; Valentin v. Pomilla, 59 A.D.3d 184, ---N.Y.S.2d ----, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 981, 2009 WL 304684; Reyes v. Esquilin, 54 A.D.3d 615, 866 N.Y.S.2d 4 [2008] ). While defendants' doctors acknowledge the possibility that the accident might have aggravated plaintiff's preexisting conditions, causing his acute symptoms in the emergency room, plaintiff fails to support his claim of a 90/180-day injury with evidence that he was unable to perform his usual and customary daily activities. In this regard, a reduced or changed work schedule is insufficient (Ronda v. Friendly Baptist Church, 52 A.D.3d 440, 861 N.Y.S.2d 622 [2008]; Lopez v. Simpson, 39 A.D.3d 420, 835 N.Y.S.2d 98 [2007] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 03, 2009
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)