Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007

Guadalupe v. Blondie Limo, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided September 13, 2007

43 A.D.3d 669; 841 N.Y.S.2d 525

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Correa v. Asm Saifuddin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Perez v. Vasquez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Clemmer v. Drah Cab Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Williams v. Tatham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Torres v. Triboro Services, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Day v. Santos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Russell v. Mitchell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Antonio v. Gear Trans Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Pou v. E&S Wholesale Meats, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Weaver v. Town of Penfield (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Lunkins v. Toure (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Beaton v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Takahisa Onishi v. N & B Taxi, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)

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

*670Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered on or about May 25, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence demonstrating that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the car accident between the parties. Specifically, defendants submitted the affirmed report of a neurologist who, upon examining plaintiff and performing objective tests, concluded that she had a normal range of motion of the lumbar and cervical spine, despite positive MRI findings (see Thompson v Abbasi, 15 AD3d 95, 96 [2005]). They also submitted plaintiff’s bill of particulars and deposition testimony, which reveal that plaintiff was confined to bed and home for only a few weeks after the accident.

Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that a serious injury was sustained within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Despite the positive MRI report, there were no objective findings immediately following the accident to demonstrate any initial range-of-motion restrictions on plaintiff’s cervical and lumbar spine, or any detailed explanation for their omission (Thompson, 15 AD 3d at 98). The quantitative range-of-motion assessment plaintiff did submit was made more than two years after the accident by a physician who examined her only on that one occasion (see Atkinson v Oliver, 36 AD3d 552 [2007]). There is thus a failure of proof relating this doctor’s findings to an accident that occurred more than two years prior to his examination.

Plaintiff also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she was incapacitated from performing substantially all of her usual and customary activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days after the accident. The subjective claims of pain and “unsubstantiated claim of inability to perform [her] customary daily activities are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact” (Thompson, 15 AD3d at 101). Concur—Friedman, J.P, Nardelli, Buckley, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.