Lazu v. Harlem Group, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Kover (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Lewis v. Razu (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Toure v. Sanogo (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
- Rodriguez v. Saul (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
- Rosario v. Cablevision Sys. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Diaz v. Almodovar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Luetto v. Abreu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Luetto v. Abreu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Malupa v. Oppong (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Malupa v. Oppong (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Vasquez v. Almanzar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Vasquez v. Almanzar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Rivera v. Crotona Park East Bristow Elsmere (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Rivera v. Crotona Park East Bristow Elsmere (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Barry v. Arias (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Correa v. Asm Saifuddin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Williams v. Horman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Yonkers Avenue Dodge, Inc. v. BZ Results, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
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
Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The record demonstrates that plaintiff failed to submit evidence in admissible form with findings on his ranges of motion contemporaneous with the accident. Although the letter of his treating physician contained such contemporaneous findings, it was unsigned, and “[statements and reports by the injured party’s examining and treating physicians that are unsworn or
Furthermore, plaintiffs neurologist failed to address the findings of defendants’ radiologist that plaintiff had degenerative changes at the L4/5 and L5/S1 levels that preexisted the accident. It is noted that the findings of plaintiffs radiologist that discs L4-S1 “show desiccative changes consistent with degenerative process” were consistent with the findings of defendants’ radiologist, and supported the conclusion that plaintiff had a preexisting condition (see Valentin v Pomilla, 59 AD3d 184, 186 [2009]).
Dismissal of plaintiff’s 90/180-day claim was also proper. Plaintiff failed to submit medical proof in support of the claim that he was unable to perform substantially all his activities of daily living for the requisite period (see Shu Chi Lam v Wang Dong, 84 AD3d 515, 516 [2011]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.