From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bonner v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2003
756 N.Y.S.2d 82 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-05171

Submitted January 22, 2003.

February 24, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated April 18, 2002, as, in effect, granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint except with respect to the plaintiff's claims of serious injury related to the alleged fracture of the transverse process of the vertebrae at L5.

Hankin, Hanig, Stall, Caplicki, Redl Curtin, LLP, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Lynn M. Smookler of counsel), for appellant.

Maynard, O'Connor, Smith Catalinotto, LLP, Albany, N.Y. (Michael T. Snyder of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The medical evidence submitted by the defendant in support of his cross motion for summary judgment made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). In opposition to the cross motion, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact through the affidavit of an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Russell G. Tigges, that, as a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained a serious injury in the form of a fracture of the transverse process of the vertebrae at L5 (see Insurance Law § 5102[d]; Bebry v. Farkas-Galindez, 276 A.D.2d 656).

By establishing that any one of several injuries sustained in an accident is a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), a plaintiff is entitled to seek recovery for all injuries incurred as a result of the accident (see Bebry v. Farkas-Galindez, supra; O'Neill v. O'Neill, 261 A.D.2d 459, 460; Preston v. Young, 239 A.D.2d 729, 731 n; Kelley v. Balasco, 226 A.D.2d 880; Prieston v. Massaro, 107 A.D.2d 742, 743-744). However, the plaintiff failed to present evidence that any of his other injuries were causally related to the accident (see Har-Sinay v. Accessible Windows Glass Mirror Corp., 272 A.D.2d 575; Fallon v. Landwirt, 261 A.D.2d 435). Contrary to the plaintiff's arguments, the attribution of another orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Andrew M. Peretz, of the plaintiff's alleged injuries and symptoms to the accident is unexplained and conclusory. Therefore, it is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to causation of the plaintiff's alleged injuries other than the fracture of the transverse process of the vertebrae at L5. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly limited the issues for trial to the one injury the causation of which was in dispute (see CPLR 3212[g]).

SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY, SCHMIDT and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bonner v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2003
756 N.Y.S.2d 82 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Bonner v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN T. BONNER, appellant, v. DANIEL J. HILL, respondent

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

Date published: Feb 24, 2003

Citations

756 N.Y.S.2d 82 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 82

Citing Cases

Wierzbicki v. Mathew

The plaintiff's additional contention that the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for…

Rosario v. Ruggiero

To the extent that defendants have so failed there is no need to consider plaintiff's opposition papers (see…