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.
Marilyn FRIER, as Trustee of the Estate of Steven Soares and Margo Soares, as successor in interest to Steven Soares and Margo Soares, Appellant, v. Nancy M. TEAGUE, Respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., Marilyn Frier, as Trustee of the Estate of Steven Soares and Margo Soares, as successor in interest to Steven Soares and Margo Soares, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), entered July 2, 1999, as granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted that branch of the cross motion of Steven Soares which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted on behalf of Margo Soares.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof granting those branches of the motion and cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by Margo Soares and substituting therefor provisions denying those branches of the motion and cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant met her initial burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that Steven Soares did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176; Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 236, 455 N.Y.S.2d 570, 441 N.E.2d 1088). The treating chiropractor's projections of permanent limitations, which were based on examinations conducted almost three years before the motion, had no probative value in the absence of a recent examination (see, Bidetto v. Williams, 276 A.D.2d 516, 713 N.Y.S.2d 764; Mohamed v. Dhanasar, 273 A.D.2d 451, 711 N.Y.S.2d 733; Kauderer v. Penta, 261 A.D.2d 365, 689 N.Y.S.2d 190; Evans v. Mohammad, 243 A.D.2d 604, 663 N.Y.S.2d 273), and failed to specify the extent or degree of limitation in the range of motion in his spine (see, Lupo v. Cheung, 236 A.D.2d 594, 654 N.Y.S.2d 680; Lichtman-Williams v. Desmond, 202 A.D.2d 646, 609 N.Y.S.2d 296).
However, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that Margo Soares did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The conclusion reached by the defendant's physicians that Margo Soares did not sustain a serious injury, which was based on examinations performed more than three years after the accident, was insufficient to establish she did not sustain a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily activities for a period of not less than 90 days during the 180 day period immediately following the accident (see, DePetres v. Kaiser, 244 A.D.2d 851, 665 N.Y.S.2d 221). Moreover, Margo Soares's testimony at her examination before trial and the affidavit of the treating chiropractor were sufficient to establish a triable issue of fact as to whether she suffered from a medically determined injury that curtailed her from performing her usual activities “to a great extent rather than some slight curtailment” for the statutory period (Licari v. Elliott, supra, at 236, 455 N.Y.S.2d 570, 441 N.E.2d 1088; see, Marszalek v. Brown, 247 A.D.2d 827, 668 N.Y.S.2d 138; Williams v. Omera, 190 A.D.2d 618, 593 N.Y.S.2d 821; Gleissner v. LoPresti, 135 A.D.2d 494, 521 N.Y.S.2d 735). Thus, the defendant failed to meet her burden of establishing her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).
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: November 05, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)