Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

KLEIN v. GOLDFARB

United States District Court, S.D. New York


March 22, 2004.

EDWARD KLEIN, Plaintiff
v.
BARBARA GOLDFARB and CHRYSLER FINANCIAL COR, s/h/a CHRYSLER FINANCIAL CO., Defendants

The opinion of the court was delivered by: DENISE COTE, District Judge

ORDER

The defendants have moved for summary judgment in this personal injury action arising out of a collision between a pedestrian and the operator of a motor vehicle. They argue that there is insufficient evidence to give rise to a genuine issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff has suffered a "serious injury" under New York Insurance Law ยง 5102(d) ("Section 5102(d)"). The defendants' motion is denied.

Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the injuries to his teeth constitute a "fracture" so as to be a "serious injury" under Section 5102(d). The present case is distinguishable from Epstein v. Butera, 547 N.Y.S.2d 374, 375 (2d Dep't 1989). Unlike the chipped tooth at issue in Epstein, the plaintiff here has sustained extensive damage to his teeth. See Kennedy v. Anthony, 600 N.Y.S.2d 980, 981 (3d Dep't 1993) (damage to teeth requiring ongoing treatment may be a considered a "fracture" for purposes of New York's no-fault insurance law). Page 2 The issue of whether a pre-existing condition was responsible for the plaintiff's injuries must be decided at trial.

  The plaintiff has also presented sufficient evidence to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the injuries sustained by the plaintiff to his cervical spine, shoulders, and hip constitute a "serious injury" under Section 5102(d). The contradicting medical affirmations submitted by the parties in connection with this motion merely establish a "battle of the experts." Although the affirmation of Dr. Robert Zaretsky in support of the plaintiff's case is barely adequate, the challenges the defendants chose to bring against Dr. Zaretsky's affirmation must be rejected.

  Accordingly, it is hereby

  ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment is denied.

  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Pretrial Order is due on April 23, 2004.

  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must contact Magistrate Judge James C. Francis no later than March 26, 2004, to arrange for settlement discussions under his supervision.

  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is placed on the May 3, 2004 trial ready calendar. You must be ready to proceed on 24 hours notice. You may contact the Deputy Clerk, Gloria Sanchez, to learn where your case stands on the calendar.

  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following procedures shall govern the conduct of the trial.

  1. All exhibits must be pre-marked. Page 3

  2. At the start of the trial each party will present the Court with the following documents:

(a) Three copies of a complete exhibit list.
(b) A set of pre-marked exhibits assembled sequentially i) in a looseleaf binder, or ii) in separate manila folders labeled with the exhibit numbers and placed in a suitable container or box for ready reference.
(c) The exhibits should include copies of the sections of any depositions that are intended to be offered into evidence, expert reports, and any charts or summaries of evidence.
  3. Counsel should be available every day at 9:00 a.m. (except for the first day of trial) in order to discuss with the Court any legal or evidentiary issues expected to arise during the day.

  4. Testimony will generally be taken between 9:30 and 5:00 from Monday through Thursday. There will be a mid-morning, a mid-afternoon and a lunch break from 12:45 p.m. to 2 p.m.

  5. There should be no sidebars during jury trials. Counsel are expected to anticipate any problems that might require a ruling from the Court and to raise those issues with the Court in advance of the time that the jury will be hearing the evidence.

  6. Unless counsel request otherwise prior to trial, depositions offered in lieu of live testimony will not be read to the jury. Counsel should make sufficient copies of those Page 4 depositions or sections of depositions so that each juror has a complete set. If the volume of such transcripts warrants it, the transcripts should be placed in a binder. The jury will be given time to read the depositions at home, or if appropriate, in the courthouse.

  7. If counsel intend to distribute copies of documentary exhibits to the jury, make a separate copy for each juror.

  8. Counsel should make certain that they have custody of all original exhibits. The Court does not retain them and the Clerk is not responsible for them.

  SO ORDERED.

20040322

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.