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.

Danvers v. New York City Transit Authority

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


December 9, 2008

ISABEL DANVERS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,
v.
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J., and a jury), entered June 14, 2007, awarding damages for personal injuries and bringing up for review, inter alia, the denial of defendants' motion at the close of evidence for judgment as a matter of law, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendants' motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, McGuire, Moskowitz, Renwick, JJ.

21446/99

Plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of serious injury under either a quantitative or qualitative analysis (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350-351 [2002]). Concerning her lumbar spine, while plaintiff submitted evidence of herniated and bulging discs and a history of pain, an objective assessment of her range-of-motion limitations was not made until more than five years after the accident, too remote to permit an inference that her limitations were caused by the accident (see Medina v Medina, 49 AD3d 335 [2008]). Concerning her ankle, the arthroscopic surgery performed eight months after the accident to repair a partially torn ligament and a history of pain do not by themselves establish a serious injury (see O'Bradovich v Mrijaj, 35 AD3d 274 [2006]), and, once again, the only objective evidence of range-of-motion limitations was produced by tests too remote in time from the accident to permit an inference that plaintiff's present limitations were caused by the accident. In any event, plaintiff's evidence reveals an unexplained gap of two years and nine months in her primary physician's treatment, negating any showing of serious injury (see Otero v 971 Only U, Inc., 36 AD3d 430 [2007]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20081209

© 1992-2008 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.