From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lorthe v. Adeyeye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 2, 2003
760 N.Y.S.2d 530 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Summary

In Lorthe v. Adeyeye, 306 A.D.2d 252, 760 N.Y.S.2d 530 (2d Dep't. 2003), the defendants submitted the affirmed medical reports of their medical experts which established, prima facie, that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident.

Summary of this case from Thompson v. Bronx Merch. Funding Servs., LLC

Opinion

2002-05973

Submitted May 14, 2003.

June 2, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated May 6, 2002, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Litman Litman, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey E. Litman of counsel), for appellants.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA L. TOWNES, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendants submitted the affirmed medical reports of their examining medical experts which established, prima facie, that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; McCauley v. Ross, 298 A.D.2d 506). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs submitted the affirmations of their examining orthopedist, who stated that each plaintiff was suffering restrictions of motion in his or her lumbosacral spine. However, the plaintiffs' orthopedist failed to address the proof that the disc bulges in the lumbosacral spines of both plaintiffs were due to pre-existing degenerative changes. Therefore, his findings that the plaintiffs' current restrictions of motion were causally related to the subject accident was mere speculation (see Ginty v. MacNamara, 300 A.D.2d 624; Narducci v. McRae, 298 A.D.2d 443; Kallicharan v. Sooknanan, 282 A.D.2d 573, 574; Waaland v. Weiss, 228 A.D.2d 435).

The plaintiffs' proof did not raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, McGINITY, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lorthe v. Adeyeye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 2, 2003
760 N.Y.S.2d 530 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

In Lorthe v. Adeyeye, 306 A.D.2d 252, 760 N.Y.S.2d 530 (2d Dep't. 2003), the defendants submitted the affirmed medical reports of their medical experts which established, prima facie, that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident.

Summary of this case from Thompson v. Bronx Merch. Funding Servs., LLC
Case details for

Lorthe v. Adeyeye

Case Details

Full title:LOUIBERT LORTHE, ET AL., appellants v. JOHN ADEYEYE, ET AL., respondents

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

Date published: Jun 2, 2003

Citations

760 N.Y.S.2d 530 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
760 N.Y.S.2d 530

Citing Cases

Johnson v. Singh

The foregoing is in keeping with the well settled principle that when a plaintiff's doctor fails to…

Zinger v. Zylberberg

The plaintiffs also failed to explain their gaps in treatment ( see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574;…