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.
Marie PATTERSON, appellant, v. NY ALARM RESPONSE CORP., et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated June 14, 2006, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176; see also Meyers v. Bobower Yeshiva Bnei Zion, 20 A.D.3d 456, 797 N.Y.S.2d 773).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Initially, all of the plaintiff's submissions, with the exception of the Riverside Health System records, the plaintiff's magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) reports, and the medical report of Dr. Alice Chen dated April 16, 2003, were without probative value since those submissions consisted of either uncertified records or unaffirmed medical reports (see Rodriguez v. Cesar, 40 A.D.3d 731, 835 N.Y.S.2d 438; Mejia v. DeRose, 35 A.D.3d 407, 825 N.Y.S.2d 722).
The plaintiff's MRI reports, and Dr. Chen's report of April 16, 2003, merely showed that as of those dates, the plaintiff had disc herniations at C3-4, C5-6, L5-S1, disc protrusions at L4-5 and C2-3, disc bulges at C6-7 and L3-4, and cervical radiculitis at C5-6. The mere existence of a herniated or bulging disc, and even radiculopathy, is not evidence of a serious injury in the absence of objective evidence of the extent of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the disc injury and its duration (see Mejia v. DeRose, 35 A.D.3d 407, 825 N.Y.S.2d 722; Yakubov v. CG Trans. Corp., 30 A.D.3d 509, 817 N.Y.S.2d 353; Cerisier v. Thibiu, 29 A.D.3d 507, 815 N.Y.S.2d 140; Bravo v. Rehman, 28 A.D.3d 694, 814 N.Y.S.2d 225; Kearse v. New York City Tr. Auth., 16 A.D.3d 45, 789 N.Y.S.2d 281; Diaz v. Turner, 306 A.D.2d 241, 761 N.Y.S.2d 93; see also Furrs v. Griffith, 43 A.D.3d 389, 841 N.Y.S.2d 594).
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: November 13, 2007
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)