Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

Haniff v. Khan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 27, 2012

101 A.D.3d 643; 958 N.Y.2d 89

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Krmic v. Corrie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Rodriguez v. Moss (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Nwanji v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Cortez v. Bray (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Diaz v. Vivar-Martinez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Diaz v. Vivar-Martinez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Alston v. Elliott (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Gomez v. Davis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Booth v. Milstein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Torres v. Etilee Taxi, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Lee v. Lippman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Pietropinto v. Benjamin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Pietropinto v. Benjamin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)

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

Plaintiffs car was rear-ended by a cab driven and owned by defendants on September 24, 2009, and he subsequently commenced this action alleging serious injuries to his lower back and left shoulder under the “significant limitation,” “permanent consequential limitation,” and 90/180-day injury categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Defendants established prima facie absence of a serious injury in the lumbar spine and shoulder by submitting the affirmed report of an orthopedist who examined plaintiff in October 2010 and found full range of motion, negative clinical test results, and resolved sprains (see Castillo v Cinquina, 85 AD3d 660 [1st Dept 2011]; Christian v Waite, 61 AD3d 581, 582 [1st Dept 2009]).

*644Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. He did not submit any recent evidence of limitations in his lumbar spine, and his expert reported the lumbar spine was asymptomatic. As to the shoulder, plaintiffs orthopedist found only minor limitations in range of motion which are insufficient to establish existence of a “significant” or “consequential” limitation (see Style v Joseph, 32 AD3d 212, 214 n [1st Dept 2006]; Arrowood v Lowinger, 294 AD2d 315, 316 [1st Dept 2002]; Bandoian v Bernstein, 254 AD2d 205 [1st Dept 1998]). Further, plaintiff returned to work without limitation after two days and his orthopedist noted that he stopped treatment at his office after two months, at which time he exhibited only mild limitations, which are not a serious injury (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]).

Defendants established entitlement to dismissal of the 90/ 180-day injury claim by submitting plaintiff’s verified bill of particulars alleging that he was confined to bed and home and was substantially disabled for only two days (see Rosa v Mejia, 95 AD3d 402, 405 [1st Dept 2012]; Onishi v N & B Taxi, Inc., 51 AD3d 594, 595 [1st Dept 2008]). Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to raise a triable issue of fact. Rather, the deposition testimony, which he submitted, confirmed that he missed two days of work. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.

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