Heumann v. JACO Transportation, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]).
In opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff primarily relied upon
Moreover, although Dr. Freedman noted in his “Chart Note” dated January 4, 2007, that the plaintiffs “[r]ange of motion [of her right wrist] is limited by pain,” he failed to set forth any quantitative or qualitative evaluation of the extent of the reported limitation (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d at 350-351; Dufel v Green, 84 NY2d 795, 798 [1995]). “Without such contemporaneous findings, the plaintiff could not have raised a triable issue of fact under the permanent loss, permanent consequential limitation of use, or the significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d)” (Nieves v Michael, 73 AD3d at 717).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.E, Angiolillo, Balkin, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.