Published on:

by

In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover damages from defendants for personal injury arising from a “slip-and-fall” type accident, occurring on October 26, 2002. Plaintiff alleges that she was a passenger on a bus, and that as she was attempting to exit the bus, she was caused to fall due to an unsafe, wet, and slippery condition that existed upon the floor of the bus.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of liability was denied as defendants have failed to show that there is no substantial issue of fact in this case and therefore nothing to try. The trial court opined that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and will not be granted if there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue.

Under the “no-fault” law, in order to maintain an action for personal injury, a plaintiff must establish that a “serious injury” has been sustained. The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must tender sufficient evidence to show the absence of any material issue of fact and the right to judgment as a matter of law. In the present action, the burden rests on defendant to establish, by the submission of evidentiary proof in admissible form, that plaintiff has not suffered a “serious injury.” When a defendant’s motion is sufficient to raise the issue of whether a “serious injury” has been sustained, the burden shifts and it is then incumbent upon the plaintiff to produce prima facie evidence in admissible form to support the claim of serious injury.

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

Additionally, plaintiff has failed to rebut evidence of a preexisting degenerative condition. Although defendants’ independent experts conclude in their affirmed reports that plaintiff’s MRI films showed evidence of degenerative changes, and chronic degenerative spinal disease which is a pre-existing condition, plaintiff failed to attach evidence from any experts indicating their awareness that plaintiff was suffering from such condition and failed to address the effect of these findings on plaintiff’s claimed accident injury. Hence, plaintiff failed to rebut defendants’ claim sufficiently to raise a triable issue of fact.

Moreover, there is an unexplained gap in treatment or cessation of treatment. Specifically, the record is devoid of any competent evidence from any health care professional of plaintiff’s treatment, need for treatment, or if and why plaintiff’s treatment ceased. Courts have held that a gap in treatment goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Here, however, there is not just a gap in treatment, but, apparently, a total lack of competent proof of any treatment whatsoever by a health care professional which is related to any condition allegedly caused by this accident. Plaintiff has inexplicably provided no competent supporting documentation of medical treatment. Plaintiff has failed to submit an affirmation which provides any information concerning the nature of the plaintiff’s medical treatment or any explanation for the several year gap between plaintiff’s medical treatment which appears to have ceased in 2003 and the date of the opposition papers to the instant motion in 2007. Plaintiff proffered no excuse for her failure to submit sworn medical records and doctor’s reports in admissible form concerning her treatment.

Furthermore, plaintiff’s attorney’s affirmation is not admissible probative evidence on medical issues, as plaintiff’s attorney has failed to demonstrate personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s injuries.

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The plaintiff commenced this personal injury action against the driver and owner of a New York City taxi, involved, along with the plaintiff, in a motor vehicle accident at the traffic light on the street. The plaintiff alleges that he was stopped at the light when the driver rear-ended his vehicle. The driver’s whereabouts throughout this proceeding have been unknown, and the owner was held vicariously liable for driver’s negligence in the court’s earlier decision.

A source said that he defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to meet the statutory requirements of a serious injury under Insurance Law, which defines serious injury as: A personal injury which results in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; a fracture; loss of a fetus; permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person’s usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment. They present affirmed medical reports from two physicians in support of this argument. The first report references the plaintiff’s repeated complaints of lumbar pain resulting in his inability to sleep through the night or remain standing pain free. The second affirmed medical report, was a radiology study of the plaintiff’s CAT scans submitted to the Hospital which shows that no evidence of acute or recent injury, rather a depiction of age-related chronic degeneration of the spine.

The plaintiff argues that the unsworn and sworn medical reports he has submitted in opposition to the defendants’ renewed summary judgment cross motion demonstrate that he has suffered permanent and significant limitations of use in his neck and back. Using copies of excerpts of correspondence from the Social Security Administration (SSA), the plaintiff further notes that the SSA has determined that he is disabled.

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

This is a personal injury action in which plaintiff, seeks to recover damages for injuries he sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 22, 2009, at the intersection of 23rd Avenue and 97th Street, Queens County, New York. At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was proceeding on 23rd Avenue when the vehicle operated by the defendant, pulled out of a parking space and collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle while attempting to make a U-turn. The plaintiff claims that as a result of the car accident he sustained injuries to his neck, including a herniated disc at C5-C6, injuries to his right shoulder, lower back and a partial tear of the ACL of the right knee.

A reporter said that the plaintiff commenced this action by filing a summons and complaint on June 18, 2010. Plaintiff contends that he sustained a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102(d) in that he sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member function or system; a permanent consequential limitation or use of a body organ or member; a significant limitation of use of a body function or system; and a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented the plaintiff from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute his usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment.

A witness said that, defendants now move for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212(b), granting summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102.

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The underlying action was commenced by the plaintiffs as a result of a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on November 29th, 2008, at or near the intersection of Page Road and Marlboro Road in Valley Stream, New York. The subject intersection is controlled by stop sign for those vehicles traveling on Marlboro Road.

A New York Injury Lawyer said that, as recited in the relevant deposition transcript, the Police Officer testified on the day of the accident she was operating police vehicle number 523 and was traveling approximately 30 miles per hour southbound on Marlboro Road responding to an emergency call she received in connection to an unconscious person in need of medical assistance. Upon receipt of this call, the Officer activated the emergency lights, which remained illuminated continuously, as well as the siren, which she operated intermittently “every half second” until the time of the car accident. Upon approaching the subject intersection, the Officer began to slow the police vehicle down when she observed the automobile operated by the plaintiff traveling eastbound of Page Road. After observing the plaintiff’s vehicle, the Officer continued to sound the siren and attempted to stop the police cruiser but was unable to do so and collided with the plaintiff. The Officer testified that at the time of impact, the speed of the police cruiser was between “five to ten” miles per hour.

A source said that, the plaintiff claims that as a consequence of the subject accident, she has sustained serious injury as defined in Insurance Law. Plaintiff, while not alleging a claim of serious injury, has asserted a derivative claim for loss of consortium. The applications respectively interposed by the moving parties thereafter ensued and are determined as set forth hereinafter. The Court initially addresses that branch of the defendants’ application which seeks an order dismissing the underlying complaint on the basis that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the County acted with reckless disregard to the safety of others. In support thereof, counsel argues that at the time of the accident the police cruiser was an authorized vehicle responding to an emergency situation and was operated by the Officer in a non-reckless manner thus warranting the relief herein requested.

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

On October 4, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident and alleged that they sustained serious injuries as defined by Insurance Law and seek to recover damages against the defendants.

The defendant moves for summary judgment in its favor. In support of the motion, the defendant submitted the following documents: with respect to plaintiff Mrs. A, the affirmed medical report of a neurologist referencing a neurological examination conducted on December 15, 2004 and the affirmed medical report of the orthopedist referencing an orthopedic examination conducted on December 15, 2004; with respect to plaintiff infant Mr. B, the affirmed medical report of the orthopedist referencing an orthopedic examination conducted on December 15, 2004 and the affirmed medical report of the neurologist referencing an examination conducted on December 15, 2004; and with respect to plaintiff infant Ms. C, the affirmed medical report of the neurologist referencing an examination conducted on December 15, 2004. (See Exhibit I.)

The lower court held that with respect to infant Ms. C, the affirmed medical report of the neurologist referencing an examination conducted on December 15, 2004 is insufficient to establish a prima facie case that infant sustained a serious injury as a result of the underlying accident because it fails to address the claims of vestibular dysfunction and left shoulder pain.

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

On December 13, 2011 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department, an interesting case was heard. The commercial vehicle accident injury that occurred in Westchester County and had been heard on September 28, 2010 was being appealed. The issue at appeal was that the property owner of a commercial property had asked the court for a summary judgment to relieve it from liability in the personal injury accident case because of contractual indemnification. In other words, they could not be held responsible for an accident or injury that occurred on the property because the business that leased the property from the owner had agreed in their contract not to hold the property owner liable. Previously, the courts had not reviewed this request.

The facts of the case are undisputed. A woman went to a fast food restaurant that was located on the property owned by the property owner. After eating, the woman left the restaurant and was struck by a commercial garbage truck that was leaving the restaurant. The woman received injuries from the accident and named the truck company, the restaurant owners, and the property owners in her suit.

The property owner states that because of the contract that says that they are not to be held liable for any actions that occur out of “any accident, injury or damage whatsoever caused to any person or property arising, directly or indirectly, out of the business conducted in the premises or occurring in, on or about the premises or any part thereof,” except if the negligence is on the part of the property owner.

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the complainants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court which, in effect, granted the motion of the defendant husband and wife and a man for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the complainant man did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102 which provides that serious injury means a personal injury which results in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; a fracture; loss of a fetus; permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function or system, or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person’s usual and customary daily activities for not less that ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment.

The most recent developments in this area of law have focused upon the definitions of permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system and permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member. These provisions have provided the complainants with less of a burden in establishing and qualifying a serious injury under New York’s No-Fault Law.

Where properly raised, the issue of whether a complainant has established a legitimate case of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law rests with the Court in the first instance.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

This is the story of an incident that resulted in a personal injury claim from a commercial truck driver. The facts of the case are not being disputed by any of the parties involved. The truck driver drove his truck to the docks to deliver some cartons of merchandise to the railroad company. He unloaded the first crate and put it on the loading platform. He then stepped onto the loading platform and picked up the carton. After picking up the carton again, he stepped onto the pier floor. What he did not know was that the flooring was broken. When he stepped onto it, it broke further causing him to fall and sustain injury. There is no dispute that the injury in question was caused due to negligence on the part of the railroad company in maintaining its flooring.

The question arises in that the railroad company claims that the insurance company that covered the driver’s truck should cover the liability from this accident because the policy covers the entire truck delivery process including unloading the truck to the point where the goods are planned to go.

The insurance company that covered the truck agreed that if it was an act of negligence on behalf of the driver, then at that time, they would incur the liability for the accident. They maintain, however, that because the incident occurred because the floor of the pier was not maintained by the railroad company in safe standards that the liability rests solely with the railroad company and not in any part with them. They cited several precedent cases that confirm their opinion. The court had previously found that the insurance company covering the truck would cover the liability. However, on appeal, it was determined that the insurance company for the truck was not responsible and that liability rests entirely on the railroad company for failing to maintain a safe working environment. The justices unanimously reversed and vacated the prior decision based on the law and on the facts. This means that the victim must sue the railroad company to receive compensation from the accident.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

An action was filed, among other things, to recover damages for wrongful death and personal injuries against a car leasing company. The action arose from a car/bicycle collision accident, which led to the death of the 30-year old woman riding the bicycle. According to sources, the woman, while riding her bicycle, was stuck by a truck. The truck was owned by a car leasing company. The car leasing company denied liability and asked a court to dismiss the complaint against them.

Records showed that on the day of the car accident, an assistant supervisor for a trucking company rented the truck from a dealer of the car leasing company. The truck, at the time of the accident, was driven by a part-time worker of the dealer.

The brother of the deceased woman filed the action. The brother alleged negligent entrustment. In the allegation of negligent entrustment, the brother said the dealer’s counter agent negligently entrusted the truck to the part-time employee. The brother said the counter agent failed to thoroughly review the driving and criminal history of the part-time employee. Sources said the part-time employee’s license is restricted to a class C driver’s license. The brother further alleged that the part-time employee’s drug use on the day of the rental and accident was obvious and the counter agent negligently failed to refuse the employee from driving.

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information