SOWAH v. OUETEOUAKAM (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered on or about November 7, 2025, which granted defendant Guy S. Oueteouakam's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant's motion was properly granted because plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to her cervical and lumbar spine within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).  Defendant established prima facie that plaintiff's claimed cervical and lumbar spine injuries were not causally related to the accident through the reports of his expert radiologist, who reviewed plaintiff's MRIs, identified numerous chronic, degenerative changes, and opined that the alleged injuries were not causally related to the accident (see e.g. Kemegue v. Rosario–Ramirez, 250 AD3d 565, 566 [1st Dept 2026];  Cooke v. Jean–Baptiste, 247 AD3d 447, 448 [1st Dept 2026];  Solano v American United Transp.  Inc., 243 AD3d 497, 498 [1st Dept 2025] ).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact.  Even though plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon found limitations in range of motion in her cervical and lumbar spine, none of her experts sufficiently addressed any of the degenerative conditions that defendant's expert found on her MRIs nor were they able to rule them out as a cause of her claimed injuries and symptoms in a nonspeculative or nonconclusory way (see Pommells v. Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 579–580 [2005];  Franchini v. Palmieri, 1 NY3d 536 [2003];  Cooke, 247 AD3d at 448;  Dixon v. Kone, 170 AD3d 541, 541–542 [1st Dept 2019] ).  Further, plaintiff's experts failed to rule out in a nonspeculative or nonconclusory way that the injuries and pain plaintiff suffered were not the result of an exacerbation of prior injuries she sustained from an accident 10 years prior, or her preexisting degenerative conditions.