From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Passarelle v. Burger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 2000
278 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued November 15, 2000

December 12, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D'Emilio, J.), dated January 31, 2000, as denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102(d).

Ryan, Perrone Hartlein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (William T. Ryan and Robin Mary Heaney of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Besso, Holtsville, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant met her burden on the motion by submitting affirmations of medical experts who examined the plaintiff and concluded that no objective medical findings supported her claim (see, Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79, 83-84). The plaintiff's opposition was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff failed to submit any proof contemporaneous with the accident of any initial range of motion restrictions in opposition to the motion (see, Jimenez v. Kambli, 272 A.D.2d 581). In addition, the plaintiff's doctor failed to set forth what objective tests, if any, he performed in arriving at this conclusions concerning any alleged restrictions of motion (see, Grossman v. Wright, supra, at 84).

The plaintiff's subjective complaints of headaches were insufficient to defeat the motion (see, Alvarez v. Ming Chao Wong, 266 A.D.2d 248).

Finally, even if the conclusion of the plaintiff's doctor that the plaintiff suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome was supported by objective medical evidence, such evidence would be insufficient to satisfy the threshold criteria that the plaintiff sustained a permanent consequential limitation of a body organ or member (see, O'Reilly v. Nelson, 261 A.D.2d 372, 373; Horan v. Mirando, 221 A.D.2d 506).


Summaries of

Passarelle v. Burger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 2000
278 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Passarelle v. Burger

Case Details

Full title:KELLY PASSARELLE, RESPONDENT, v. MELINDA BURGER, APPELLANT (AND A…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 12, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
717 N.Y.S.2d 348

Citing Cases

Rookwood v. Valdez

However, I would note that the plaintiff's injury would most likely not meet either of these standards. See…

Pajda v. Pedone

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the…