Clinkett v. Yiyun Hu

Clinkett v Yiyun Hu 2024 NY Slip Op 34489(U) December 24, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 514556/2021 Judge: Ingrid Joseph Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2024 03:11 PM INDEX NO. 514556/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2024

IAS Part 83 At an lAS of the Supreme Court of of of the State of New York held in and for the County of Kings at Adams Street\Broo_klyp.'..,New York, on the Street\Broo}dYP'..,NewYork,.on ~ ~ay a y of~d}<;~~-~~202_1._. of_d}<)_~ 202~.' · PRESENT: PRESENT: HON. INGRID JOSEPH, J.S.C. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ----------------------------------------------------------------------X ----------------------------------------------------------------------)( Index Index No: 514556/2021 514556/2021 JOAN JOAN CLINKETT, CLINKETT, Motion Motion Seq.

Seq. 2-3 Plaintiff(s) Plaintiff(s) -against- -against- YJYUN HU, YIYUNHU, ORDER ORDER Defendant(s) Defendant(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------X ----------------------------------------------------------------------)( The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Nos.: Notice of Motion/I Affidavits Annexed Motion//Affidavits Exhibits Annexed/Reply .......... .

Affirmation in Opposition/Affidavits Annexed/Exhibits Annexed ........... .

In this this action, action, Yiyun Yiyun Hu ("Defendant") ("Defendant") moves moves (Motion (Motion Seq. 2) for summary judgment pursuant summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, CPLR 3212, dismissing dismissing the the case, case, on the ground ground that that Joan Joan Clinkett Clinkett ("Plaintiff') ("Plaintiff') has failed to satisfy has failed satisfy the threshold requirement threshold requirement o.f Insurance Law of Insurance Law 5102(d) or in the alternative alternative to dismiss dismiss any any sub-portions sub-portions of of Insurance Insurance Law Law 2105(d) which are 2105(d) which viable as a matter are not viable matter of of law. Plaintiff Plaintiff has opposed the has opposed the motion. motion.

Additionally, Additionally, Plaintiff Plaintiff cross-moves cross-moves (Motion (Motion Seq. 3) for summary judgment. Defendant summary judgment. Defendant has opposed opposed the motion. motion.

In this this action, action, Plaintiff Plaintiff seeks seeks to recover recover damages damages for injuries injuries sustained sustained as a result result of an alleged of alleged ,, " motor vehicle motor vehicle collision collision that that occurred occurred in November November of of 2020.

2020. Plaintiff Plaintiff alleges alleges that that while she was while she was lawfully lawfully within a marked within marked crosswalk, crosswalk, at or or near near the the intersection intersection of of Cozine Cozine Avenue and Van A venue and Siclean Avenue Van Siclean A venue in Brooklyn, New Brooklyn, New York, York, that that she was was struck struck by a motor motor vehicle vehicle owned owned and operated the Defendant. operated by the Defendant. Plaintiff Plaintiff asserts that as a result asserts that result of the alleged of the alleged collision, collision, she sustained sustained serious serious injuries her head, injuries to her head, spinal spinal column, column, and left knee. knee. Additionally, Additionally, Plaintiff Plaintiff claims claims that that disabling disabling injury injury for a period excess of period in excess of 90 out out of of the first first 180 days days following following the accident, accident, significant significant limitation limitation of of use of of a bodily bodily function function or system, system, significant significant disfigurement, disfigurement, and and a permanent permanent consequential consequential limitation limitation of of use of ofaa bodily bodily organ organ and/or and/or member. member.

In support of her support of her motion, motion, Defendant Defendant argues argues that that Plaintiff Plaintiff has failed failed to make make a prima prim a facie showing facie showing that she suffered that suffered a serious injury as defined serious injury defined pursuant pursuant to Insurance Insurance Law.

Law. Defendant argues that Defendant argues that Plaintiffs Plaintiffs alleged alleged injuries injuries are not not supported medical evidence, supported by medical have completely evidence, have completely resolved, and/or are pre-existing, resolved, and/or pre-existing, degenerative degenerative in nature nature and/or and/or are not not causally related to a significant causally related significant limitation limitation of of motion motion or residual residual ·, " disability disability as a result result of of the subject subject collision collision and thus thus do not not support support a viable viable cause cause of of!action. Defendant 1action. Defendant submits submits Independent Independent Medical Medical Examination Examination ("IME") ("IME") reports reports of of Plaintiff Plaintiff which which were were performed performed by Dr. Pierce Pierce Ferriter Ferriter ("Ferriter"), ("Ferriter"), a board board certified certified orthopedic orthopedic surgeon surgeon and Dr. Daniel Daniel Feuer, Feuer, a board board certified certified neurologist. Defendant neurologist. Defendant contends contends that that in Ferriter's Ferriter's examination examination report, report, he opined opined that that objective objective testing testing were were

1 of 5 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2024 03:11 PM INDEX NO. 514556/2021 NYSCEF ,. DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2024 normal and normal and that that Plaintiff Plaintiff has fully fully recovered. recovered. Additionally, Additionally, Ferriter Ferriter also also reviewed reviewed intraoperative intraoperative surgical surgical photos of photos Plaintiff's left knee of Plaintiff's knee and opined that the opined that the photos photos reveal reveal degenerative degenerative and nontraumatic nontraumatic pathology, pathology, therefore Plaintiff's therefore Plaintiffs surgery was not surgery was not causally related to the allege causally related allege motor motor vehicle collision. Furthermore, vehicle collision. Furthermore, Feuer Feuer opined opined that that Plaintiff's Plaintiffs neurological neurological examination examination was was within within normal normal limits limits with with neither neither a disability disability nor any permanency. permanency. Defendant Defendant also also submits submits radiological radiological reports, reports, which which were were reviewed reviewed by Dr. Melissa Melissa Sapan Sapan Cohn Cohn ("Cohn"), ("Cohn"), a board board certified certified radiologist. radiologist. In her her reports, reports, Cohn Cohn examined examined 9 post-incident post-incident films and found found the the presence presence of of severe degenerative osteoarthritis severe degenerative osteoarthritis of of the the left left knee knee and and multilevel multilevel degenerative degenerative change/arthritis of change/arthritis the spinal of the column. Defendant spinal column. Defendant contends contends that that the submitted medical the submitted medical evidence evidence demonstrates demonstrates that the Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs injuries injuries are are insignificant within the insignificant within the meaning of Insurance meaning of Insurance Law and that Law and that there there is no objective objective or credible credible evidence that Plaintiff evidence that Plaintiff sustained sustained any causally causally related related permanent permanent loss of of use, use, permanent permanent consequential consequential limitation, limitation, or significant significant limitation limitation of of use to a body body function function or system. system. With With respect respect to Plaintiffs Plaintiffs 90/180 90/180 claim, claim, Defendant Defendant argues argues that that Plaintiff Plaintiff did not suffer suffer from medically medically determined determined injuries injuries or impairments impairments of of a non-permanent non-permanent nature nature that that substantially substantially curtailed curtailed her her usual usual and customary customary activities activities for days during days during the the first first 180 days days following following the the incident. incident. Defendant Defendant cites cites to Plaintiff Plaintiffss Bill Bill of of Particulars Particulars which states which that Plaintiff states that Plaintiff was was confined confined to bed for only only approximately approximately 7 weeks following the weeks following the incident. incident.

Defendant also Defendant also cites Plaintiffs EBT cites Plaintiffs testimony wherein EBT testimony wherein Plaintiff Plaintiff testified testified that that she was was confined confined to her her bed and home home "for "for a couple couple of weeks," post-accident.! of weeks," post-accident. 1 In opposition, opposition, Plaintiff Plaintiff argues argues that that there there are triable triable issues issues of of fact warranting warranting denial denial of of Defendant's Defendant's motion. motion. Plaintiff Plaintiff asserts asserts that that her her submitted submitted medical medical records records demonstrate demonstrate objective, objective, quantitative quantitative evidence evidence with with respect respect to her orthopedic exams her orthopedic exams and diminished range of diminished range of motion motion and states states that her treating that her treating physicians physicians affirmed that her affirmed that her injuries injuries were were not not degenerative degenerative in nature. nature. Additionally, Additionally, Plaintiff Plaintiff contends contends that that as a result result of of the accident, her usual accident, her usual activities were affected activities were affected for 90 of of the first 180 days the first days following following the accident, and the accident, that she still that stilI experiences negative effects experiences negative effects of her injuries of her injuries including including reduced reduced working working hours hours and being deemed being deemed 75%-99% 75%-99% disabled. disabled. Plaintiff Plaintiff also also contends contends that her treating that her physicians instructed treating physicians instructed her her not not to go back work back to work due to disability. disability. Plaintiff Plaintiff submits submits in part part her her own own affidavit affidavit and EBT EBT testimony, testimony, medical medical records, records, a disability disability letter letter from Dr. Sangavaram Sangavaram ("Sangavaram"), ("Sangavaram"), and affirmations affirmations of of Dr. Abhishek Abhishek Kumar Kumar ("Kumar"), ("Kumar"), Dr. Isaac Isaac Kreizman ("Kreizman"), Kreizman ("Kreizman"), and and Lana Lana Dashevsky Dashevsky ("Dashevsky"). ("Dashevsky").

It is well well established that "the established that proponent of "the proponent of a summary judgment motion summary judgment motion must must make make a prima prima facie showing showing of of entitlement judgment as a matter entitlement to judgment matter of of law, tendering tendering sufficient sufficient evidence evidence to demonstrate demonstrate the absence absence of of any material issues any material issues of fact" (Ayotte of fact" (Ayotte v. v. Gervasio, Gervasio, 81 NY2d [1993], citing NY2d 1062, 1063 [1993], citing Alvarez v. Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d NY2d 320, 320, 324 [1986]; Zapata v. [1986]; Zapata Buitriago, 107 AD3d v. Buitriago, AD3d 977 [2d Dept Dept 2013]).

2013]). Once Once a prima prima facie demonstration demonstration has been been made, made, the burden burden shifts shifts to the party party opposing opposing the motion motion to produce produce

{Plaintiff Dep.

11 (Plaintiff Dep. Pg.

Pg. 92).

92).

2 of 5 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2024 03:11 PM INDEX NO. 514556/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2024 evidentiary proof, evidentiary proof, in admissible sufficient to establish form, sufficient admissible form, the existence establish the of material existence of of fact which issues of material issues which require trial of require a trial the action. of the (Zuckerman v. action. (Zuckerman City of v. City of New 557 [1980]).

NY2d 557 New York, 49 NY2d [1980]).

Summary judgment is a drastic Summary judgment which should remedy which drastic remedy not be should not granted where be granted there is any where there doubt as to any doubt existence of the existence of a triable triable issue where the issue issue or where even arguable issue is even (Elzer v. arguable (Elzer v. Nassau III A.D.2d County, 111 Nassau County, A.D.2d 212, [2d Dept.

212, Dept. 1985]; 1985]; Steven Steven v. v. Parker, AD2d 649, [2d Dept.

Parker, 99 AD2d Galeta v. 1984]; Ga/eta Dept. 1984]; New York v. New News, Inc., 95 York News, AD2d 325, [1st AD2d 325, [1st Dept. 1983]). When Dept. 1983]). deciding a summary When deciding judgment motion, summary judgment the Court motion, the Court must construe facts must construe facts in the the light light most most favorable favorable to the the non-moving party (Marine non-moving party (Marine Midland Bank N.A. v. Midland Bank v. Dino Automatic Artie's Automatic Dino & Artie's Transmission Co., 168 AD2d Transmission Dept. 1990]; [2d Dept.

AD2d 610 1990]; Rebecchi v. Whitemore, Rebecchi v. AD2d 600 Whitemore, 172 AD2d Dept. 1991 [2d Dept. ]).

1991]).

The issue The issue of of whether whether a claimed injury falls within claimed injury the statutory within the definition of statutory definition injury" can "serious injury" of "serious can be a question question of of law law for the Court which the Court may be decided which may on a motion decided on for summary motion for judgment (Licari summary judgment (Licari v Elliot, Elliot, 57 NY2d 230 [1982]).

NY2d 230 such, inherent [1982]). As such, court's consideration the court's inherent in the motion for summary of a motion consideration of summary judgment lack of judgment for lack of serious injury is the serious injury requisite determination the requisite determination that there are that there no issues are no of fact issues of fact with regard with regard to the the injuries injuries sustained by a plaintiff. sustained by The failure plaintiff. The failure to make such a showing make such showing requires denial of requires denial of the motion, the motion, regardless of regardless of the the sufficiency the opposing of the sufficiency of papers (Winegrad opposing papers New York (Winegrad v New NY2d 851 Ctr., 64 NY2d York Univ. Med. Ctr., [2016]). Once [2016]). Once the the movant movant has has made such a showing made such that a party showing that has or has party has has not suffered a serious not suffered injury as serious injury a matter of law, the matter of the burden the opposing shifts to the burden shifts opposing party submit evidence party to submit form sufficient admissible form evidence in admissible sufficient to create a material create material issue issue of warranting a trial fact warranting of fact Palmieri, 1 NY3d (Franchini v Palmieri, trial (Franchini Grasso v [2003]; Grasso NY3d 536 [2003]; Angerami, 79 NY2d Angerami, 1991 ]).

NY2d 813 [[1991]).

A plaintiff claiming permanent plaintiff claiming of use of permanent loss of body organ, of a body member, function organ, member, or system function or must system must demonstrate that the demonstrate that the permanent permanent loss of use is a total loss of of use (Oberly total loss of Bangs Ambulance, ( Oberly v Bangs NY2d Inc., 96 NY2d Ambulance, Inc., [2001]). In Toure [2001]). Toure v. v. Avis Avis Rent-a-Car Systems, Inc., 98 NY2d Rent-a-Car Systems, (2002), the NY2d (2002), Court of the Court stated that Appeals stated of Appeals that resolving resolving the question of the question of whether whether plaintiff suffered a "serious plaintiff suffered injury" involves "serious injury" analysis of comparative analysis involves a comparative of the the quantified quantified degree degree and and duration alleged injury, of an alleged duration of or its qualitative injury, or impact and qualitative impact the duration in the and duration claimant's normal claimant's normal activities. analysis requires This analysis activities. This admissible proof requires admissible of injury proof of objective medical based on objective injury based medical testing, which testing, which establishes causal relation establishes a causal relation between the accident between the and the accident and injury alleged, the injury between well as between alleged, as well the the injury and the injury and claimed limitation the claimed impairment. In order limitation and impairment. order to prove the extent prove the degree of extent or degree physical of physical limitation, an expert's limitation, designation of expert's designation percentage of numeric percentage of a numeric of range plaintiff's loss of of a plaintiffs motion can be of motion range of used to substantiate used substantiate a claim of serious claim of injury (Toure serious injury Avis Rent (Toure v Avis Car Sys., Inc., Rent A Car NY2d 345, Inc., 98 NY2d 350 [2002]; 345, 350 [2002]; Dufel Dufel v Green, Green, 84 NY2d Lemieux v Horn, [1995]; Lemieux NY2d 705 [1995]; 209 AD3d Horn, 209 1100 [3d Dept.

AD3d 1100 An expert's 2022]). An Dept. 2022]). expert's qualitative assessment qualitative assessment of plaintiff's condition of a plaintiffs condition also suffice, provided may suffice, also may provided that evaluation has an the evaluation that the objective basis objective basis and and compares compares the plaintiff's limitations the plaintiffs the normal limitations to the function, purpose normal function, of the and use of purpose and affected body affected organ, member, body organ, function or system member, function Robinson, 305 AD2d Black v Robinson, system (Id.; Black Dept. 2003; [2d Dept.

AD2d 438 2003; Junco Junco v Ranzi, Ranzi, 288 AD2d AD2d 440 [2d Dept.

Dept. 2001]; First Fid. Leasing Papadonikolakis v First 2001]; Papadonikolakis AD2d Group, 273 AD2d Leasing Group, [2d Dept.

299 Dept. 200 2001]). Establishing a lack I]). Establishing of limitations lack of normally would limitations normally defendant to successfully enable a defendant would enable successfully

3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2024 03:11 PM INDEX NO. 514556/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2024 establish that establish that the permanent consequential the permanent consequential limitation of a body of use of limitation of member or significant organ or member body organ significant limitation limitation of of a body of use of or system function or body function system have been satisfied not been have not by Plaintiff satisfied by (Toure at 3 Plaintiff (Toure 350; Franchini 50; Franchini at 536). establish that To establish that the plaintiff has suffered the plaintiff permanent or consequential suffered a permanent limitation of consequential limitation body of a body of use of organ member and/or organ or member significant limitation and/or a significant limitation of of a body use of of use function or system, body function the plaintiff system, the must plaintiff must demonstrate more than demonstrate more minor or mild, minor than a mild, or slight limitation of slight limitation use and is required of use provide objective required to provide medical objective medical evidence of evidence of the extent or degree the extent degree of of limitation duration (Burnett limitation and its duration (Burnett v. Miller, Dept.

A.D.2d 541 [2d Dept.

Miller, 255 A.D.2d Miller, 258 Booker v. Miller, 1998]; Booker AD2d 783 [3d Dept.

258 AD2d Marshall, 147 AD3d Jones v Marshall, Dept. 1999]; Jones Dept AD3d 1279 [3d Dept 2017]).

2017]).

With respect With the 90/180-day respect to the "serious injury" category, a "serious 90/180-day category, defined as a plaintiffs injury" is defined inability to plaintiffs inability perform the material of the substantially all of perform substantially material acts which constitute his or her which constitute customary activities usual and customary her usual activities for not less than days immediately the 180 days of the than 90 of following the date immediately following of the accident date of (Insurance Law accident (Insurance 5 I 02[d]).

Law 5102[ d]).

A claim claim under 90/180-day category under the 90/180-day terms does category by its terms have a durational not have does not beyond the 180- element beyond durational element 180- period set forth day period the statute, forth by the making a plaintiffs statute, making condition irrelevant current condition plaintiffs current whether he or she irrelevant as to whether was was unable carry out unable to carry out her normal and customary her normal activities during customary activities the statutory during the period (see statutory period (see Insurance Law Insurance Law Murat, 304 Peplowv Murat, 5102; Peplowv 304 AD2d 2003]). To prevail Dept. 2003]).

AD2d 633 [2d Dept. this category, under this prevail under must plaintiff must category, a plaintiff demonstrate competent, objective through competent, demonstrate through objective proof, medically determined proof, a medically determined injury or impairment injury or of a impairment of nonpermanent nature nonpermanent would have which would nature which caused limitations have caused the plaintiffs limitations on the plaintiffs daily activities (Ryan daily activities Xuda, (Ryan v Xuda, AD2d 457 243 AD2d 1997]; O/ivare Dept. 1997]; [2d Dept. Olivare v Tomlin, Dept. 2020]; AD3d 642 [1st Dept.

Tomlin, 187 AD3d Fernandez, Fernandezvv Fernandez, 2020]; Fernandez 151 AD3d 2017]). This Dept. 2017]).

AD3d 581 [1st Dept. This limitation great extent must be to a great limitation must extent rather some slight than some rather than slight curtailment (Licari curtailment Elliot, 57 NY2d (Licari v Elliot, 230 [1982]).

NY2d 230 Additionally, a gap [1982]). Additionally, cessation of gap or cessation treatment is of treatment immaterial immaterial as to whether plaintiff sustained the plaintiff whether the sustained a medically injury or determined injury medically determined of a impairment of or impairment nonpermanent nonpermanent nature prevents him or which prevents nature which performing substantially her from performing or her substantially all the which material acts which the material constitute his or her constitute her usual and customary usual and daily activities customary daily not less than activities for not days during than 90 days days the 180 days during the immediately following immediately the occurrence following the of the injury occurrence of or impairment injury or (Insurance Law impairment (Insurance Plaintiff, 5102 [d]). Plaintiff, Law 5102 however, must however, some reasonable offer some must offer reasonable explanation gap in treatment the gap explanation for the cessation of treatment or cessation treatment of treatment (Pomme/ls NY3d 566 [2005]; Perez, 4 NY3d (Pommells v Perez, Neugebauer v Gill,19 [2005]; Neugebauer AD3d 567 [2d Dept.

Gill,19 AD3d 2005]).

Dept. 2005]).

Here, Here, the court finds the court that Plaintiff finds that raised a triable Plaintiff has raised issue of triable issue whether she has suffered fact as to whether of fact suffered a significant limitation. permanent or significant permanent Defendants submit While Defendants limitation. While reports from part reports submit in part doctors to examining doctors from examining argue that argue Plaintiff's injuries that Plaintiff's have completely injuries have completely resolved, and/or are pre-existing, resolved, and/or nature degenerative in nature pre-existing, degenerative and/or subject accident, unrelated to the subject and/or are unrelated accident, in opposition, Plaintiff submits opposition, Plaintiff submits medical reports which medical reports conclude which conclude that casually related injuries are casually Plaintiff's injuries that Plaintiff's related to the accident, not degenerative, accident, not degenerative, and permanent in nature. and permanent Upon nature. Upon review records, Plaintiff of the records, review of has sufficiently Plaintiff has sufficiently submitted physician affirmations submitted physician stating that affirmations stating upon a based upon that based reasonable degree of reasonable degree medical certainty of medical certainty that injuries and limitations Plaintiff's injuries that Plaintiff's nature and permanent in nature limitations are permanent

4 of 5 [* 4] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2024 03:11 PM INDEX NO. 514556/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2024 state in addition state addition an opinion Plaintiff's alleged how Plaintiff's opinion as to how affects her injuries affects alleged injuries customary activities daily and customary her daily activities that the alleged and that alleged injuries related to the causally related injuries are causally accident. Additionally, subject accident. the subject physician opinions the physician Additionally, the opinions supported by are supported by the doctor's own the doctor's examination of own examination the patient of the the report patient and the objective diagnostic references objective report references diagnostic tests that tests that were conducted (see were conducted (see Addison NYC Trans. Auth., Addison v NYC AD2d 368 Auth., 208 AD2d Dept. 1994]). [1st Dept.

368 [1st 1994]).

With the claim respect to the With respect under the claim under 90/180 category, the 90/180 the court category, the finds that court finds there is a triable that there issue of triable issue of fact as to whether whether Plaintiff was unable Plaintiff was substantially all of perform substantially unable to perform of the material acts the material which constitute acts which constitute his or her her usual usual and customary activities and customary not less than activities for not of the 180 days than 90 of immediately following days immediately date of the date following the of the accident. the accident. While Defendants cite While Defendants Plaintiff's EBT cite Plaintiff's testimony wherein EBT testimony she testified wherein she was confined that she was testified that confined her bed and to her and home home "for couple of "for a couple weeks," post-accident, of weeks," Plaintiff, in opposition post-accident, Plaintiff, submitted physician has submitted opposition has physician reports expressing reports opinion concerning expressing an opinion alleged disabling the alleged concerning the effect of disabling effect Plaintiff's condition of Plaintiff's the 180 during the condition during days immediately days immediately following accident. Additionally, the accident. following the upon review Additionally, upon of the review of records, Plaintiffs submitted records, the submitted Plaintiff's affidavit and EBT affidavit testimony does EBT testimony does not suggest that not suggest plaintiff has that plaintiff returned to work has returned the accident. following the work following accident. hereby, Accordingly, it is hereby, Accordingly, ORDERED, that ORDERED, motion for summary Defendant's motion that Defendant's summary judgment issue of the issue judgment on the injury as serious injury of serious defined Insurance Law defined by Insurance denied; and it is further, 5102( d) is denied; Law 5102(d) further, ORDERED, motion for summary Defendant's motion that Defendant's ORDERED, that summary judgment the issue judgment on the whether Plaintiff of whether issue of Plaintiff sustained an injury sustained injury which resulted in her which resulted being unable her being perform her unable to perform usual and her usual activities during customary activities and customary during of the first of days following first 180 days the accident following the For the denied. For accident is denied. reasons, Plaintiff' s motion aforementioned reasons;Plaintiff the aforementioned motion (Motion Seq. 3) is also (Motion denied for triable also denied of fact. issues of triable issues This constitutes This constitutes the order of and order decision and the decision the court. of the court.

Hon. Ingrid Jo ph J.SlC.

Hon. Ingrid J.Sle. "r Hon.

Han. Ingrid Ingrid ~oseph Joseph Supreme Supreme Court Court Justice Justice

5 of 5 [* 5]