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.

Nicole Moore, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Francisco Almanzar

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


February 5, 2013

NICOLE MOORE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCISCO ALMANZAR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Moore v Almanzar

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.

Decided on February 5, 2013 Friedman, J.P., DeGrasse, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, Feinman, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered January 17, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims of serious injury under the permanent and significant limitation categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established prima facie that the injuries that plaintiff allegedly sustained to her cervical and lumbar spine, shoulders, and knees were not caused by the motor vehicle accident. They submitted evidence that plaintiff suffered neck and lower back injuries in an earlier accident, and reports by a radiologist and an orthopedist opining that the MRI films of the allegedly injured body parts revealed a chronic pre-existing condition and no radiographic evidence of trauma or causally related injury (see Spencer v Golden Eagle, Inc., 82 AD3d 589, 590--591 [1st Dept 2011]).

Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition. The limitations found by her expert regarding plaintiff's left shoulder were too minor to be deemed "significant" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Phillips v Tolnep Limo Inc., 99 AD3d 534 [1st Dept 2012]). Plaintiff's orthopedic expert noted that defendants' expert found degeneration in her right shoulder on the MRI, which plaintiff's radiologist confirmed, but failed to address these findings. Plaintiff submitted no recent quantifications of range-of-motion restrictions in her spine or knees (see Vega v MTA Bus Co., 96 AD3d 506 [1st Dept 2012]), and failed to address the evidence that her neck, back and knee injuries were pre-existing conditions.

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

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 5, 2013

CLERK

20130205

© 1992-2013 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.