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.
Nikita L. Lazarus, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rafael Perez, et al., Defendants-Respondents, American Transit Insurance Company, Defendant.
_
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson S. Román, J.), entered on or about May 22, 2008, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiff's motion to renew a prior order granting the motion by defendants Perez and Best Auto for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In the absence of new facts not offered on the prior motion that might have led to a different result (CPLR 2221[e] ), plaintiff's motion for renewal was properly denied (see Rosado v. Edmundo Castillo Inc., 54 AD3d 278, 279 [2008] ). Even were we to consider the merits, we would find plaintiff's argument without substance. Although plaintiff's contemporaneous medical records and reports from South Africa were neither certified nor sworn, plaintiff could rely upon them because defendants referred to these documents in support of their motion for summary judgment. Nevertheless, these doctors discerned no significant abnormalities and found plaintiff to be “free of any neurological signs.” Nor do plaintiff's medical records contain any quantitative assessment of a loss of range of motion, spinal defects or other serious abnormalities. It is well settled that contemporaneous, objective proof of injury, such as an expert's designation of a numeric percentage loss of range of motion or the extent or degree of physical limitation, is necessary to satisfy the statutory serious injury threshold (see Franchini v. Palmieri, 1 NY3d 536, 537 [2003]; Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 350-351 [2002] ).
Plaintiff's argument with regard to the 90/180 rule (Insurance Law § 5102 [d] ) is similarly unavailing. Despite plaintiff's contention that she missed some time from college as a result of her accident, she failed to submit medical evidence to show that she could not perform “substantially all of the material acts which constitute [her] usual and customary daily activities” (id.) for not less than 90 of the first 180 days following the accident.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 1694
Decided: May 13, 2010
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)