Gonzalez v Swindell

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Gonzalez v Swindell 2012 NY Slip Op 30345(U) January 25, 2012 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 09-44653 Judge: Daniel Martin Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] fNDEX No. "IIORT F(IRM 'liWER CAL No. 09-44653 11-01508MV SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK IAS. PART 9 - SUFFOLK COUNTY .~ .. PRESENT: 1-1011. DANIEL M. MARTIN Justice orth~ Sllpr~1l1eCourt MOTION DATE 8-2')-11 (11001) MOTION DATE 9-28-11 (1/002) ADJ. DATE 11-15-11 Mot.Scq H001-MCJ tt-002-X MO ---------------------------------------------------------------)( ANGELO GONZALEZ. PIall1tlff, JACOBY & JACOBY. ESQS. Attorney for Plninliff 1737 North Ocean Avcnuc Medford, New York 11763 - against WENDY JO SWINDELL SWINDELL and KRISTINA RICHARD T. LAU & ASSOCIATES Attoll1cy for Defendants 300 Jericho Quadrangle. P,O. Box 9040 Jencho, New York I 1753 Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------)( Up\ll1 thl: folluwing P~lpl:I·~11l11ll!Jered I w----.lL read Oil tile~e motiOlls for Sllll1l11dl-Y judgll1l.:lll : Notice ot·lVhlliull! Ol"(·kr It) Show Calise and supporting papers I - ~O ; Notice of Cl"Oss Motion <lnd SLlpporring papers 12·20, /\I1SWCI·illg i\ITlci;lvils :llld supporting papers 21 - 29. ReplYing i\f1idnviIS Hlld sllpponing p~lpers 3() - J I : Otllel- _, (and de"l IIC"I i"l_ t;.(>tiilsci ill '>Uppoil "lid vjipo.kd lu llie 1I101ion) it is. ORDERED Ihat the motion by plaintiff for an order granting summary judgmcm Ihe issuc of liability pursuant 10 CPLR 3212 is granted: and in his 1~lvoron it IS further ORDERED thai the mOlion by defendants for an order grantmg sUlllmary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 disllllssing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning ofthl' Insurance Law is denicd. This 15 an action to recovcr damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff as a rc;sult of a rear-end colllsion which occun'cd on Apnl 14,2009 at approximately 4:30 p.m., at the illlers...:clioll of Grand Boulevard and East Jcfryn Boulevard, in the Towl1 or Babylon. New York. The undisputed !:lcts establish that plainti rf was thc dnver oj" a Dodgc pickup truck \\illiell was hit In the 1\::;11" end by a vehtcle owned by dcCcndant Knstma SWindell and operated by defendant \Vclldy Ja Swindell. [* 2] (jl1lli:ales v SWlllddl I!H.kx No. 09-44653 Pagc No . .2 !'laillil ITnow moves lor an order granting summary judgll1enl III his favor on 111C issm: of liability. alk-glut;, thalthl..'re are no Iriable issucs of t~lClin connection Iherewith. Iklcndants oppose Illc motion argulllg thai there are qucstions of f~lCtas 10 whethcr the p1ailltllrs Vl'hlcle was completely stopped or stopping at the tUllC of tile collision, and whclher plamtifY was negligent in thc operation of his vehicle causing it to come 10 an abrupt stop WILhoUIwarning. !\ddilillllally. defendants eross-move for summary judgmcnt dismissing the complaint 011the ground Lhat Lhe ItljUrl(;S allegedly sustained by plamtitTbil to satisfy Ihe ""serious injury" lhrc:-:oholdrequirement or Secllun .')10:2 (d) orthe Insurancc La\v. SllIllnwry judgmcnt is a drastic remedy and should only be granted Illl'he abscnce ol',I11Ytrlahk ISSUCS 1:1(.:1 ()r (see Rolu!Ja E.rlnulers, file. v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 413 NYS2d 1411197Sl ,ludre \' l'o/IJeroy,.l.:1 NY2d 3(11. 3(,2 NYS2d 131 [1974J). It is well settled that the propunent ora sUlllmary j lIdg1l1l'1l\ mot ion must make a prIIl/u/r/de showi ng 0 r en tnleIllcIlt to Judgment as a 11l<lllcrof b\v. It'IH.kring sutTicil'nt proof to ckmonstrnlc the absence of any lllatcnallss11c.s of facl (/l/vare~ \' ProspeCT Ho,\jJ .. ()S NY2d 310, 324, SOH NYS2d 923, l,)25 [19S(1). FaJlure to make such a showlIlg. requires a denial ortbe mOlion, rt..'gardlcss of the suffiCiency of the opposmg papers (Wiuegrad l' Nell' York Ullir, Med, err., 64 NY2d X5 L ~53, 4R7 NYS2d 316, 31 ~ t19851l. Furrher, the credibility of the pames is Ih)1 :In appropriate considerallon for tht' Court (S.J, Capelin Assoc,~-., fn£:. l' Clobe Mi.!:. Corp,. 3-1-NY.2d 3JX, 357 NYS2d 47811(741), and all compctent evideJl(.:e must be vicwed ill a light 1110stl~vorable 10 Ihl.' parlY opposing summary judgment (BeninCllsa II Carrubbo. 141 AU2d (,3(J. ()J 7, 5.2tJ NYS2d 797.799 [2d Dcpt 1l)~~J). Onct' this showing by the movanl has been established, Ihe burdcll shills 10 illl.' pany opposing the summary judgment 1110lion to produce evidence suffiCient to estabhsh (he cx iSlellCl' of a material issut' of ['act (see Almrez v Prmpecl Ho.\jJ., sl/pra). Vehlck and TmtTic I.'[\-v ~ 1129 (a) provl(ics thaI "rqlle driver of a mOlor vehicle shall nol follmv annlher vehicle mon.' closely than IS reasonable and prudent, having due regard f'i.)t. hc speed or such t vcllicles ~ll1dthe tratTic upon and the condition oUhe higlnvilY."' Thercf'ore. "1'vJehlcit: stops Wilich ~lre rlll"\ .. 'see;lbk under the prev,lII I11gconditions, even ifsuclden <lnd frequent, must be ,lIltlclpalcd by Ihe driver who It)llows, since he or she 15 under a [st,ltutoryl duty 10 mal11tain:l S'lli.: distance between hiS or her c,lr and lhe c,lr ,llJead" (Barberena \I Budd Hiller."., 299 ADld 305, J()6. 749 NYS2d 1471'2d Ikpl J()02 J: s{'c also Malak I' Wynder. 56 AD3d 622. g(,7 NYS2d 5.19 [2d Depr 2(J()t-:j). Morcover, a re,lr~nd colliSIOn wilh a SIOPPcc!or stoPP1llg vehide creales a prill/afl/c/(' case ornegligt~nce with respect It) lilt' 0pl'rator of the moving vehicle and ll1lpOSeSa dUlY on thaL operator 10 provide a non-negligclll l'xp1<11l:l110nor the collision (see Hughes l' Bo Cai. 55 I\D3rl675. 866 NYS2d 253 12d Dept 200Xl). f 1'1allltltfhas established Ihat his vehide was stopped or stopping when il was hit in Ihe rear hy deli.:ndallls'vehicle. Dcli.:ndants have t~liled 10 come forward with a lloll-llegligclll (''\planatlon for Ihe ¢... ollision. Deli.:ndant \Vendy.lo Swindell tesllfied Ihat she \vas Lravelmg al approximately 30 !HlleS !)L'r hour and was Iwo car lengths behind plainli ff S VdllClc just prior to the collision. Her leS1Jmony revcak-d thai il had Slopped raining but that the roads were wet at the time. Dcli.:ndant WClldy.lo SwitJ(kll also Indicated that she was unable to see the tr:lftk light at the intersection when:: the accidclH tnuK pl<lce becausc pl:1I1l11ff's "vctlICIt;' was kllld of aim os I blocklllg the VICWnrtlJe tr~\rtlc light so I did Iwl SCl' lhc lranie light. what color il \vas. I was going with the now oftraftic." Ti\h:ing inlLl accoulIl (11,11 lile l'Oadw,lY \V~IS wel and dcl'clld:lIlt's c,!all11ol'lllllltcd visibilily orthe lnll'fic light dlll'lo (hl~ Sl/:Cor [* 3] (illllzail's v SWllldcll Index No. 09-44653 Page No. .) phlinti Ir s vehicle, it is clear thai her allowance of only Iwo car lengths between bel' vehick: and pl~lilltilrs was lIlsufliclent and llot reasonable or prudent under the prevailing circunlslanl"l:s. Even if plaintilTbroughl hIS VdlH:lc 10 a sudden and abrupt SlOp, defendant was ulHkr an ohligatiun to keep;l sail: distancc to afford her lhe ability to SLOpher vehicle withoUl a colliSIon. Accordingly, plaintilrs 1Il0tion tor summary judgmcnt in his favor on the issue or liability IS granted. Turning next to the defendants' cross motion, in support thereof they submil copies of the ple~ldlngs, the vcnl~ed bill of particulars, a transcnpt ofplamtifrs deposition, and sworn reports oj' Mil'hacl.!. KatL:, M.D. and Stephell W. Lastig. M.D. The piaintitTsubmits, 111 OPPO:-:iill(lllo the (rOS:-:i t 111()li()I1,:\11 an~davit oj'Salv:\lOrc R. PrIncipe, D.C. as wcll as hiS Illccl1cal records. A "slTiollS Injury" IS delincd as a personal injury which "'result', III death; disll1Clllbcrlllent~ slgllilieant Jisj·~gurcmenC a l1'acture; loss of a fetLl-";pcrmanent loss of use of a body organ. mcmber. rUnCIion or system; permanent conscq uellllal IImita ti on 0 r LIseof a body llrgan or member; sign itiC:iJl\ liIllitatloll of use of a body !'ulll.:tion or system: or a medically dctermll1ed lllJury or Impalrillcllt of a l1on~IK'rm;lt1ent nature which prevents the ntjured pcrson Crom perlonning substalllially all ot"the material acts which constitutes sueh person's usual and l.:LIstomary daily activities lar not Jess than nine!y Jays during the one hundred cighty days Immediately lolJowing the lH;l;UlTCnCeof the injury or imp<'lirmellt'· (Insurance Law 51 02[dJ). The Court of Appeals has held that the issue ot"wllethcr;l claimed injury 1~J1ls withm the statutory dellnitlon of a "serlous injury" is a question of law for the COLlrtsin the first instance. which lllay properly be decided Oil a motion !()r SlIllll1lary Judgmcnt (set' * Ucari I' Ellio1t, 57 NY2d 230. 455 NYS2d 570 [19821: Charley v Goss, S4 1\03<1 569.:":63 NYS2d 205 [I st Dept 200S]). III ~lmotor velm.:Jc casco a dekndant moving for slIlllmary jlldglllelll Oil the is.'';L1c f whether lill' o pl~llnlirt"slistalned ,1 sl'rious injury has the initial burckn ot"prcsenling ClllllPl"ll:l1t eVldcncc l'stabllshill:': [h;ll [he Injuries do not l11cctthc thrcshold (,I'CI.' agono I' l(ings!JlIJT. I ~2 AD2d 2.()~, SX7 N'{S2d (/)2 P 12l! IkpI 1992]). 1;'Clllurc10 11l,\kcsuch priil/ojilcic sllOwing requires a dl'ni~11orll1c 111l1lion,rc!:,-ardless (-,1' lhe SLitll'lCllCY ur the opposing papers (see Alvarez v Prmpect !losp., .l'lIj)/'l/; Wi/legrad I' Nell' York Llllh'. r il-'/ed. Or., supra) Once this showlll'::; ha:-:i een made. howcwr. lile burden shins to thc plallltifftn b produce evidentiary proof 111 admissible form sullicll:nt 1"0overcome the defendant's submissions by delllonstrating a triable issue of hlCI lhat a serious injury was sustained within the Illc,lnil1g of the Insurance Law (see Gmlt(r 1I/:);/er. 79 NY2d 955, SR2 NYS2d 990 [19921; G'roSS/lUI1I J·WrighT. 26X Al )2d 79. 707 N'l'S2d 233 t2d Dept 2000]: Paga/lo I' KiugsbllJ)J. supra; sce: alsu Almre: II ProSI'l'Cf limp .. SIIIJrtI: Zuckemul1I \' City of New York.. 49 NY2d 557. 4~7 NYS2d 595 [19XOI). The complaint alleges that plallltilYsustallled a serious injury as del~ned in secllon 5102(d) orihe Insurance Law as a result of the defendant's negligence in causll1g lhe accident. Specifically, the blllllr particulars alleges that plallltilr sustained the Following inJUries: tllsc bulging at 1.5-S I whL're rherL' I~ ,I cl".'lllral focally extruded disc herniation ill tht: midline associated with radial allllular tcar \vhll'h 1l1lprC~Scson the thecal ~,ICand ~hLl{Sthe antermedial Illargm into the S 1 nerve root: po~tL'n()r (!Jsc hul~ing Illlpll1glllg on the thecal ::iaeat C2-3 though C5-(): lumbar sprain/slr:lln: IUl11bos~lcral r:ldiclilopathy; cervll'ul r~ldiclIlop,llhy: cerVIcal radiculitis; I~ll'el <lrthropathy/sYl1drollll': bilalcr;ll 1.5-S I 1H.:t·Vl' mot ItTit~ltiot1; t-ight C5/C6 l1erve root irl"llall0n; cervical spr,lln/~tt':lil1; :uld P()st ccrvlcngenic [* 4] (i()I1I::~llesv SWindell Indl'x No 00-44().\l [--',IgeNO.4 Ill~:l(iaeks_ It is further alleged that, as a result ol'the accident, pla1l1till WdS trC,lled in Ille ellwrgclll:Y mom 011the dale urthe accident and thut he was partlally disabJcdlh1l1lthe dale orthc :lccident \0 Jal1U;lry lh, :!()i () (when he lost his job as a result oflhe ;lccidcnt). The bill ofpartlcuLlrs ,Illeges (ildl pl,lllltitTsust,llllcd ,1serious injury Within the meaning orthe Insurance 1:1\,\111 1 thatlle SUSldllled a perirldllCnl" ,1l1d/or pal-tial eonsequentiallimlllHion oruse ora body organ or memher:;l Slgl11llcal11 11l1l1(atlollo1"usc ora hody fUllction nr system; and a llledically deten1llned IllJury or Impairment 01",1 nOnpCrJllallcllt nature which prevented him frolll performmg sllbstaillially all or the Ilwlcrial acts whid cOl1stTtuted his usual and customary dally activities for not less than Illnety days dllnng the one l:I~',111Y (bys illlt1ledi,ltely rollowlJ1g the occurrence. 111 report, Dr. Kat? avers that he examined the plaintiff on February I, 2() II. Hl' qllanillict! hiS cervical and lumhar SPll1C,nght and lel1 shoulders, right and It:ft elbows, nght nnd left hands dnd I()\",'CI" cx(relll1Lles 1-;lllgCS ol'!ilorion and cOlnpared hiS findings with normal ranges ol'll1otlOn, concluding 111:11 hc sLlsLdincd 110limitatIons. He round that sensatIOn 111 C5-1'1 innervated dennatoIlles was Intact ,1I1d the that n:Jlc.\. ksLlllg revealed That the biceps, tnceps, brachlorad1alis, qLl~ldriceps, tiblal1s posterior and Achilles tendon rdlcxes \-vere 2+ and symmetric and that Adson's, BabimJ:'I, Patl"lck L~lchillall's, patel!:lr .1ppl"ChcnslOll, PlVOl shin and Flllkelstein's tests 'were negative. He notcd 110preselll'e of par;\vertdwallllllsc]C spasm and 110demonsLrable clonus. Stra1ght leg )";11S1111; was tlcgatlvc. He lest 0plIlcd t1wt pl,l1T1l1Ilsustained cervical strain with radiculitis and lubrosacral strain with rad1culitis \vhleh ,wc resolved, and that plalntiffls (;urrcntly not disabled. He stated that the trealllleilt, as dnClIl1ll'l1tl'd ill the reeol-ds he reviewed, lllcluding the reports ol'Salvarorc Pnllclpe, D_C., appears In he C0l1s1sienLWith the 11lJmics diagnosed Dr. Katz lllalt1taills that the MRI reports of the cerVical <lnd Illlnb:ll- spille Indicate precxistlng degenerauw changes and tlwt plal111 ff IS c~lpable or full time, 1'1111 I tllIl,! \vork ,1S,I Illul1lher and steam titter. Dr. Laslig, ill hiS report asserts lhatlhe MRI study ofthl' Illmb~lr spine rcvedlcd degl'rll'r<\llvC disc disease \vith diSC space narrovl/ing and deSICcation at the L5-S I leveL normal posltioll and illorpllnlu!!y ol"(ile conus tl]ec!ulj;lris: :,;lwlJow broad~based lllidl1lle dISC protru:-ilon which dIsplaces epldural(~lt, bUl dllcs 110tdeform or displace the theca! sac or traversing S I nerve roots at L5-S I. ulll"em:lrk:1bk Jlllclll1::;S 1\11" rellwllling lumbar diSC spaces: neural j()ralllill;1 appeared patent throughout and unrem<lrk,illlc the puslcrlur clement:-;; ~ll1d,there was 110evidencc of central lumbar canal stenosIs. H1S IinpreSS101l IV,lSlildl L-ile dlse space narrowtllg and desiccation were the "hallmarks" of degellerallve disc dlSC,lse <lnd, In hiS 0j111lIUIl,thl~ shallow bru,ld-b,lsed lllldiine diSC protrusion at L5-S I \V<1S most likely dcgl'llcr~l(ivc III 01"1 1n ,me! 1Inrei ,llcd to the Apn I 14, 2009 accident. Dc fendants have del1lOllslrated thc Ir / Jrillw/(Ici(' g ell I'llk tllen! to j udgmcn Las a matter of law by estab Iish ing that pi ai llli t'f has not susUi il1ed serious IlljlIrles (see' TOllre t' ",1 Relit A Car S)!s.,I)X NY2d 345, 7M) NYS2d 865 1_:2()()2]). The burdell orprooL vis thnet()re, shIned to p1allltdTto produce eVidentiary proofin adlll1ssible form sltn~cil:nt Loestablisll lll~ltcrr,11Issues oj' t;lCt which requIre a trial of (ile (lctiOll (see G{/d(~v II E:vler, .l"11/)I"U) III OppOSitiOn, pJa1nlJllsuhmits an atTidavlt (lnd report of his tredlmg cl1lrnpr,ldoL S,Jlv~ILorc PI-IIKlpe, DC Dr Pt"lncipe avO\vs that he (-Irst treated plainLJlToll Apnl n, 2009 ,ll1d IdSLSdW him (lil ()etoher J, 1() I I. He consistently noted limitations in the lumbar ~ll'1d eervl\.'al -"PlIll' r:lI1gcs oj nwLlon ,IS (llllipared lO 110I'l11alindings uSing ,111 f incll11omctt'r He ;]lso dcclan:-d that pl,lilltlJflS sLllrcl"1n~ l'l"(lllldis( bulglllg :l( L5-S I INhere there is a ccntnll I(-Jcally extruded disc: herni,ltToll Tl1tilc l11lCIlineas:';(H.:I~ltcd witll rndJ<lI :11'II1l1hll' which l111pl"\:::sses the thecal sac and abuts the antcrmec!i,iI marglll Into (he S I nel'Vl' tcar on [* 5] Con/.'lks v Swindell lillie;.; Ntl. (jl)-44()5J Page No.5 root, and pusknor disc bulgmg impinging on thecal sac at C2-3 through C.:'i-(), as well as bil,lkral L5-S I Ilcn,'C root IITitatloll and rIght CS-() nerve root llTilatlon Dr. Prinupe avers that the Trendeienburg, Lesagllcs, Bechlcrews, Gaellskns, Linders, Nachlas, Ely and Double leg tests wne ,dl POSItive. He avo\vs tllat the cen'ic,Ji and lumbar injUries ofplamtJtT an: causally related 10 thc ,lcciclent oj" Apn 1 14, 1009, tl1at plaintltTsustal11ed signilicant hmJtations/rcstnctions of the ccrvlccl! and IUlllbar rangl's nl' IllU[lon which ~ln.'pCrl11,llll:rHIlll1aturc, and that pltlmtiffsusttllned a permanent partial disability 111 C(1]lncctlun with [he Illjuries lIt' SllSt<llllCdin the accl(lcl1l. Thc Court I~nds that Dr, Pnncq)c substnnliated pli.lllltiff's Clall11ofseriuLis injury hy ascnbing ~I perccntage 10 the lkgn:e oflll11itatiull ,llle! compared the plaintin"s lillliutions to the norm,ll fUlle/loll. pllrl)()se ,1llL!USe oCtile alfccted body organ, mcmber, functlon or system (s('c, Toure l' Avis Relit /1 eliI' .\)!,\'.. SII/)f"(I: see ii/SO Dllfeli Green, S4 NY2d 795, ()22 NYS2d 900 [I 0(51). Ade!ill011~111y, 111ciiclll"'; he th,ll pl<lilltllT sust,llned pcrll1,l11cnt ,md sigllit~cant ltl.Junes to the cervIcal spille at C5-6 which wcre llOt ~lddresscd by defencL!nts A Iri,lblc issue Ofj-~lct e,\lsts as to whether hc sustalncd a serious injury. AccordIng 1 ell'Icmb nIs' lTlotion fl.)!" ummary .ludgmcn t ellsmlsslllg the c I,llms ()r p lai nti 1'1' y, s agelinst lhcm on the grounds (hat he has 1101 satisJ-ied the "serious IllJury" threshold requirclllc'nl IIlSllr-HnCC LI\V l or ~5 [()2(d) IS dCilled. Upon service of,l copy of/his orcler with notice of entry, the Calendar Clerk (ll'this Court IS directcd to place this action on the C1lendar Control Part Calendar fiJr the Ilext ,lvailable (1;lte. 4kd?tt1£~ -;----))'1:\\---------FINAL I)ISPOSITlOi\' -----3~i\'()N-FiNAI, I)ISPOSITI()N

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.