From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bandoian v. Bernstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 27, 1998
254 A.D.2d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

holding that a 10% restriction of extension and/or rotation of the cervical spine is not a type 7 injury and summary judgment is granted

Summary of this case from Scotto v. Moraldo

Opinion

October 27, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.).


The physician's affirmation stating summarily that the three plaintiffs all suffered from permanent disability of the cervical spine was insufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiffs had in fact sustained permanent loss of use or permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ, member or function within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ( see, Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017). Nor was the other medical evidence adduced by plaintiffs sufficient to sustain their action in the face of defendant's prima facie meritorious summary judgment motion. Medical proof of "serious injury" offered respecting one of the plaintiffs was inadequate for its failure to specify the degree of limitation or restriction caused by the injury ( see, Stallone v. County of Suffolk, 209 A.D.2d 403) and was based upon an MRI examination performed more than a year-and-a-half earlier by a physician other than the affiant ( see, Friedman v. U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 A.D.2d 266). As to the two remaining plaintiffs, the 10 percent restriction of extension and/or rotation they claim to have suffered is not under the circumstances of this case of sufficient magnitude to qualify as a "significant" or "important" limitation of use ( see, Waldman v. Dong Kook Chang, 175 A.D.2d 204; Medina v. Zalmen Reis Assocs., 239 A.D.2d 394; compare, DiLeo v. Blumberg, 250 A.D.2d 364), or a permanent loss of use ( see, Hutchinson v. Beth Cab Corp., 204 A.D.2d 151) within the meaning of the statute. Plaintiffs' papers were also deficient for their failure to include affirmations from their treating physicians based upon examinations performed in the near aftermath of the accident; nor did plaintiffs provide information respecting the nature of the medical treatment they received for their injuries or explanation for the almost two-year gap between the accident and their physician's examination ( see, Medina v. Zalmen Reis Assocs., 239 A.D.2d, supra, at 395).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Bandoian v. Bernstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 27, 1998
254 A.D.2d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

holding that a 10% restriction of extension and/or rotation of the cervical spine is not a type 7 injury and summary judgment is granted

Summary of this case from Scotto v. Moraldo
Case details for

Bandoian v. Bernstein

Case Details

Full title:VINCENT BANDOIAN et al., Appellants, v. RALPH J. BERNSTEIN, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 27, 1998

Citations

254 A.D.2d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
679 N.Y.S.2d 123

Citing Cases

Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc.

Second, while Dr. Waltz opined that plaintiff was suffering from bulging and herniated discs, his opinion was…

Ragabear v. Lallmahamad

The limited restrictions of plaintiff's range of motion described, is not, under the circumstances of this…