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.
STEPHANIE D'ANGELO, PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. ANDREA S. LITTERER, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted in its entirety and the complaint is dismissed.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when the vehicle she was driving collided with a vehicle driven by defendant. Supreme Court erred in denying in part defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). Defendant met her initial burden by submitting medical records and the report of the physician who conducted a medical examination on defendant's behalf establishing that the injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff in the accident were preexisting. “Because defendant submitted ‘persuasive evidence that plaintiff's alleged pain and injuries were related to ․ preexisting condition[s], plaintiff had the burden to come forward with evidence addressing defendant's claimed lack of causation’ “ (Clark v. Perry, 21 AD3d 1373, 1374, quoting Pommells v. Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 580). Plaintiff, however, failed to meet that burden. Indeed, her “submissions in opposition to the motion did not ‘adequately address how plaintiff's current medical problems, in light of [plaintiff's] past medical history, are causally related to the subject accident’ “ (Anania v. Verdgeline, 45 AD3d 1473, 1474; see Hartman–Jweid v. Overbaugh, 70 AD3d 1399, 1400).
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
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: CA 11–00425
Decided: September 30, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)