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.
Lorraine WALLACE, respondent, et al., plaintiffs, v. ADAM RENTAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., defendants, Horton Transportation, Inc., et al., appellants.
In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Horton Transportation, Inc., Horton Transportation II, Inc., and Arif Gardashov appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), entered June 4, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Lorraine Wallace against them 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, with costs.
The appellants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Lorraine Wallace 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, 956-957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176). In support of their motion, the appellants relied on, inter alia, the affirmed medical report of Dr. Wayne Kerness, their examining orthopedic surgeon. In that report, Kerness noted significant limitations in the range of motion of Wallace's left shoulder (see Alvarez v. Dematas, 65 A.D.3d 598, 884 N.Y.S.2d 178; Landman v. Sarcona, 63 A.D.3d 690, 880 N.Y.S.2d 168; Bagot v. Singh, 59 A.D.3d 368, 871 N.Y.S.2d 917; Hurtte v. Budget Roadside Care, 54 A.D.3d 362, 861 N.Y.S.2d 949). While Kerness broadly opined that the all of his findings regarding Wallace were normal because Wallace suffered from pre-existing degenerative changes of, inter alia, the left shoulder, he failed to set forth any foundation for that conclusion (see Franchini v. Palmieri, 1 N.Y.3d 536, 775 N.Y.S.2d 232, 807 N.E.2d 282).
Since the appellants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted in opposition to the motion (see Alvarez v. Dematas, 65 A.D.3d 598, 884 N.Y.S.2d 178; Landman v. Sarcona, 63 A.D.3d 690, 880 N.Y.S.2d 168).
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: December 08, 2009
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)