Browdame v. Candura
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Yashayev v. Rodriguez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Kavanagh v. Singh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Borelli v. Ogno (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Sullivan v. Dawes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Faulkner v. Steinman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Welch v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Coppage v. Svetlana Hacking Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Walters v. Papanastassiou (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Benitez v. Mileski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Bonavoglia v. Singh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Mondi v. Keahon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Agathe v. Tun Chen Wang (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Chui Fong Lam v. Spring Scaffolding, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Hernandez v. Stanley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Caracci v. Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- LaCagnina v. Bernard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Spektor v. Dichy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Mirochnik v. Ostrovskiy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Iles v. Jonat (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Holtzman v. Bishop (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurkin-Torres, J.), dated August 19, 2004, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against each of them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motions are denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
The report submitted by the defendant Lewis J. Candura’s expert orthopedist, adopted by the defendant Danny Perez, failed to specify the degree of range of motion in the plaintiffs cervical spine in support of his conclusion that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury. With respect to his examination of the plaintiffs lumbosacral spine, in those instances where he assigned a numerical value to the range of motion, the orthopedist failed to compare his findings against the range of normal. The report submitted by the defendant Lewis J. Candura’s expert neurologist, adopted by the defendant Danny Perez, was also lacking. Accordingly, the “defendants’ proof failed to objectively demonstrate that the plaintiff did not suffer a permanent consequential or significant limitation of use of his [lumbosacral] cervical spinets] as a result of the subject accident” (Aronov v Leybovich, supra at 512; see Baudilio v Pam Car & Truck Rental, Inc., 23 AD3d 420 [2005]; Minlionica v Shahabi, 296 AD2d 569, 570 [2002]). Moreover, after having acknowledged, at least in part, the findings contained in the reports of the plaintiff’s magnetic resonance imaging scans documenting disc herniation, the defendants’ expert physicians failed to examine the scans and did not allege that the disc herniations were not causally related to the accident (see Zavala v DeSantis, 1 AD3d 354, 355 [2003]; Black v Robinson, 305 AD2d 438, 439 [2003]). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.