Carmona v Amato

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Carmona v Amato 2012 NY Slip Op 30876(U) March 28, 2012 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 08-25671 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] ";IIORTF<IRM OII.OER INDEX No. CAl. No. 08,25671 11,01046 MV SUPREME COURT, STATE Of NEW YORK IAS. PART 9 ' SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. DANIEL M. MARTIN Justice orthe Supreme Court MonON DATE 9-19-1 I (it 002 & tI 0041 MOTION DATE 10,11,111#003) ADJ. DATE _1_1_,1_5_,_11 Mot. Scq. # 002 - M D #. 003 - MD #004,XMD """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""",)( JOSE A CARMONA, SUSAN 13. DOMfNGUEZ and MILKIA SANTANA, _ GRUNDF AST & HIGIIAM Attoll1cy for Plamtiffs 207 Hallock Road, Suite 207 Stony Brook, New York 11790 Plall1tiffs, RICHARD T. LAU & ASSOCIATES Attorney for Defendant - against ~ P.O. Box 9040 Jericho, New York JAMES AMATO, Defendant. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""",)( 11753-9040 A1'-lDREA G. SA WYERS, ESQ Attomey for Plamti rr on Counterclaim 3 Huntington Quadrangle, P.O. Box 9028 Melville, Ne\y York 11747 Upon 1111::: lallowing papcr~ numbered I to 38 read 011 tJle~emolions and cross motion I"m$UlllJll;lrV ludt;lllClll ; Notice or Motion! Order to Show CaLise and supporting p:lpers I - 21,22 - 25 ; Notice of Cross MOlioll and supporting papers 2(, - 29. An~wering Affidavits and supporting papers 30 - 34; Replying Aflidavits <lndsupporting p;lpcrs 35 - 36; 37 - 3::':: 0Ih('r_: (and ,tfk, li~,lli"s eoullscl in sappall aud opposed to the Illotioll) il is. ORDERED that the motion (# 002) by defendant for an order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him on the ground that plaintiffs Jose Carmona, Susan Dominguez and Milkia Santana did not sustain a "serious mjury" as detined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is del11cd:and it is further ORDERED that the molion (If 003) by plailltiffon the counterclaim, Jose Carmona, 1'01' an order gra1lting SUlllmary Judgment, ill tel' alia, distllissing the complaint (sic) and allY cross claims asserted by plmntllT M llkia Santana against him on the ground tbat pJa111tiff M ilkJa Santana did 110t sustain ,1 "serious lllJury" as defined III Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is denied; and it is further [* 2] C:lrl1101Wv i\1l1~1l0 lnde."\ No. ()8-2567] ORDEHED t.hat the cross Illotion (if 0(4) by plal11tiff Jose Carmona for an order !;'.ranting summary J udgnlcnt d iSIl1lSSlllgthe comp la int of p lam ti iT J'vl lk la Santana ~\gainst hUll on the gro 1I d til;ll J n plallltitT Santana did not sLlstam ,1"serious injury" as defined 111 Insurance Law S 5102 (d) is denied This is all action to recover dal'nages for pel·sonallll.lUnCS allegedly sllstall1cd by plailltiffs whcn their vel1ll-;k collided With a vebicle o\vned and operated by defendant .James Amato at the Intersectioll of Brent\vood Road and Union Boulevard in Bayshore, Ne'vv York, on Apn129, 2007. /\t the time of tile accident, plaintJf'i-'s Susan Dominguez and MJlki(l Santana "vere passengers 1ll a vehicle operated by plallltirr.Jose Carmona (Ind owned by plaintiffDomingucz. Defendant answered and asserted counterclaims against plallltiffCarmona, alleging that hIs negligence or culpable conduct caused the ~\CCldenl. By their blll of particulars, pLuntiffs allege that, as a result ofthc subject acudcl1t, pJailltifT Carmona sustained senous injuries including bulging discs from L3-L4 through L5-S I, straightenIng 0 r· the lumbar lordOSIS; tcnderness in upper trapezius: thoracic tenderness and spasm; low back tenderness; cervical, thoraCIC and Iumbar strain and spraill~ and cervical radlcldopathy. Plainti IT DOllll1lguez sustained seriuus inJuries including chronic tear of the subscapulans tendon of tile left shoulder; possibk chromc tear of the anterioriantewlllfenor labrocapsulm ligament complex of the Ich shoulder; supraspinatus unpll1gemcnt oethe left shoulder; loss of the norma] ccrvical lordOS1S~and accentuatcd lumbar lordosis: tcnderness in upper trapezius; thoracic tenderness~ low back tcnderness and spasm, cervical, thoracic and lumbar strain and spraln; and lumbar radlcuJopathy. Plalnti ff Santallil sLlstalned SCl"lOUS llljllries lIlcludlllg cervicaL thoracic and lumbar stram and spra1l1; cervical rC:\lhclllopathy at C.5C(i; lumbar radicuJopathy; right wnst sprain; tenderness 111 upper trapezIUs; thoracic tenderness; low back tenderness; tenderness in right wrist; straightening of the cervieallordosls; cervlcal and lumbar hernlClted dISCS; cervical and thoraCIC sprain; and sprain in right shoulder and !"Ight 'vvrisL Defendant now moves (# 0(2) for an order granting summary judgment dismissing the cOlllpblllt against him on the ground that plall1tiffs Carmona, Dominguez and S(lntana have \lot sustained ~lSl:rJOlIS in.iury as dt:fined l1l 11lsur~\l1ceLaw !i 5 I02 (d). Insurance Law ~ 5102 (d) tlefincs "senolls Injury" as "a personal IIljury wi]l(.::hresults 111 death. d Isll1elnberment; Slgll i ficant disfigurelllcn t; a t1"<lcture;loss 0 f a fetus; l)ernJanent loss 0 ruse 0 f a body org<ll1, member, function or system; permanent consequcntiallil11ltation of use ofa body organ or mcmber; sign itican t llillitalloll of use of a body funetlon or system; or a mecJ i en 11 delerl1l1l1ed iIljUry nr y Illlpalnnent ora non-pcrmanent nature whIch prevents the InJured person from performing substantlilily all ol·the 111<11Crl,11 which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activitlcs t()r not kss acts liTan ninety days dunng the onc hundred clghty days Illlmediately followll1g the occurrence of the illJUI)' or IlllpdJrlnenl In order to recover under thc "permanent: loss of Lise" category, pl~lllltllT l1lust dClllOllstrate a \(l!:11 loss tlf L1SC a body organ. member, functioll or systcm (Ober(JI)' Ballgs Ambulance, ()(l NY2d 2'05, of T27 NYS2d 378 [2001]). To prove the extent or degree ofphyslcalllll1itatron with respect to the '·pcTm'HH:llt cOllsequcntlallimltatlon oruse ora body organ or mcmber" or a "significant lllllitatioll or lIse ULI body fUllctlon or systcm" categories, either a speciJic percentage of the loss of range Ofl1l0tl0l1 l1lust hc ascrihed, or there must be <1 suiliclent descnption of the "qualitativc nature" ()fpbIl111j"j"S [* 3] Carmon:] v A l1lato Indn No. U8-25() 71 1l1Tlllations, wIth an objective basis, correlating plmntiffs lImitations to the nonnal function, purpose (lild use ufthe body part (,'lee Perl), Meher, 2011 NY Slip Op 8452, 2011 NY Lcxis 332() l2UI1J) A mIllar, mild or slight lImItation of me is conSIdered Illsignific<.lnt within the meaning of the st,mIte (Licari I' Elliott, 57 NY2cl 230, 455 NYS2d 570 [1982J). On a motIon for sumlllary Judgment, the defendant has the lIlItlal burden oflllaklllg a pnma l:tCIC show Ing, through the SlIb1ll1 lOll 0 f cvi denee in adm iss Ib Ie form, that the inj ured pi :llllti1f did not ss sustain ~l"serious injury" wIthlll the meanlllg of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy I' [~~vler, 9 NY2d 7 955,582 NYS2d 990 [1992]: Aklltar v Santos, 57 AD3d 593, 869 NYS2d 220 [2d Dept 200S]) The dcft":ndant may satisfy this burden by submitting the plaintiff's own depositIon testimony and the affinned medical report of the defendant's own examining physician (see Moore v Edisoll, 25 AD3d 672, 811 NYS2d 724 [2d Dept 2006J; Parozes v Kaltlrall, 22 AD3d 458, 802 NYS2d 706 [2d Dept 2(051). The failure to make such a prima bcie sho\.vll1g requires the denial of the motion regardless of the suffiCiency of the opposing papcrs (see Willegrat! v New York UIlII'. Met!. Ctr., 64 NYld 851, 85:1, 487 NYS2d 316 [1985]; Boone v New York City Tr. AlIlh., 263 AD2d 463, 692 NYS2d 73 1 [2d Dept 199<)]). On March 17, 20 I L approxunately four years after the subject aecJ{.ient, defendalll's nal1l1l11n:; ortl1opec!Jst Dr. Isaac Cohen, examined plaintifTCarmona using certain orthopedic and neurological tests, ll1cluding CompressIOn rest, impingement signs, Hawkins' test, and straight leg raislllg test. All the test results werc negative. Dr. Cohen performed range of motion testing on plallltiffCarmona's cervIcal and thoraco]ulllbosacral spine and left shoulder LlSl11g gomometer a 'vVlth respect to the phllntl1fCarmona's ccrvical spine, Dr. Cohcn indicated that tlexJOn WolS55 degrees (norl1laI45-65 degrees); hyperextensIOn was 50 degrees (normal 45-65 degrees); nght and len lateral benclll1g \verc ··Ill the 45 degree range" (norl11aI40-52 degrees); and right and left rotation were "Ill the 70 degree rall,!;e'· (normal 63-93 degrees). Rcgardll1g plmntiffCannona's thoracolumbosacral spine, he indIcated then range of motIon testIng "in active fashIon" showed fleXIon to 70 degrecs (n01"lml151-81 degrees), extensIOn to 30 degrees (norma128-38 degrees); right and left lateral bending to 30 degrees (normal ::!23() degrees); and nght and left rotation to 25 degrees (up to 30 degrees llorm,I1). V·lith respect to plall1tJlT ("'armona's left shoulder, Dr. Cohen mdlcated that exammatlOn of the left shoulder revealed ]e)r\varcl elcvatlon to 165 degrees (normal 162-172 degrees), abduction to 180 degrees (normal 177-191 degrees): aclductlOl1 to 30 degrees (up to 30 degrees normal); extcrnal rot81ion to 100 degrees (001'111al96-111 dcgrees); und 1Ilternal rotation to 60 (kgrees (normal 64-74 degrees). I·kn.\ dekndant 1·:l1lec1 make a prima lllcle showmg that plaIlltdlCll"Il1ona did not SUSt<lllla to sertOUS Injury \Vlthlll the J1lCanlllg or Insurance Lmv 5102 (d) (.':Ice Reitz )' SeagUll' Trucking, fnc., 71 A1)3d 975, 898 NYS2d 173 [2d Dept 2010]). Dr. Cohen's report IS lI1sufficlent to sustain defendanl's PrIlll,1 facic burden. Dr Cohen's comparative analysls ofrhe plamtltfCarll1ona's r:mge ofl11otioll to llw purported normal range of motion for the particular body part that was being tested lacked ·'specI licily'· III that he did not compare the purported limItation to a "delinltive" normal reacilllg (see Lee I' /14 &. M /tufO CO(u·lt, 2011 NY Slip Op 30667U, 2011 NY Misc L.exls 1131 [.SuP Ct. Nassau County 2(1101). Rather, Dr. Cohcn cOlllpared the rcsults to a purported normal rangc vvhich varied ,II times up to 30 degrees, i.c. norma I cerv ica I rotati on 63-93 degrees ,IlKI norlllOlI thoraco IUlllbosacrul Ilcx I tll1 5 I-S I dcgn::cs Dr, Cohen relerenced a spectrulll of degrees that would qualify as a normal rC<'lcllllgle)r a p,lrtlcul,lr body part WIthout Indicating what other clmical components, unrelated to range ufmollon * [* 4] CarmOllCl v;\rnato Index No 08-2S()7i Pagc 4 (i.e., age), ll1~lYf~lctor Into the ultimate determll1atlon ol'\vherc the normal should hl11wltllill thai spectrulll Cor that particular patient (see id.)_ Dr_ Cohen's findings that a varYing range of up to ~O degrees is normal efJcetively elullinates the possibility that a patient with a limited range' or motIOn 01' the envied or lumbar spine wilhlll that spectrull1 has no signdicant lIlJury (see id.). [11tillS ,-cgarzL tile lack of "spel'lfieity" m Dr. Cohen's report essentially creates ~ln Issue of lilet with respect to determining whcliler plalllli rr ('annona has a signd'ic,mt limitation of range of motion for a particular body p,lr1 (.1'('(' id.) Moreovel', Dr. ('ohen reported that, \"ilth respect to plamtlfTCarmona's cervical spine range or motion, I-ight and left lateral bendlllg were "Ill the 45-degree range" and right and !en rot,ltlOIi \verc "111 the 70 degree range," rather than providlllg spcclilc numcrical rcsults (set' Browdallle l' emu/Unt, 2S AD3d 747. ~07 NYS2d 658 [2d Dept 2006]). Furthermore, although plaintJtfCarmona claimed In the b111ofpmticuJars that he sustained cervical radiculopathy as a result ofthts aCCident, the delcl1chlllt 11<1"'; nor submitted a report (-]'oma ncurologlst who examined plallltilfCarmon<:l ruling out the claimed llcurologJcallll.1Ury (see id.; Lawyer v AlballY OK Cab Cu., 142 AD2d 871,530 NYS2d 904 [3d Dep! 1<.)081)· On March 1\ 2011, defendant's examJnlOg orthopedist, Dr. Isaac Cohen, examincd plainrdT DOllllnglH:luslng certalll orthopedic and neurological tests, l11cluding Spurling test, Percussion test, straight leg l"aJSll1gtest, impingement slgns, Hawkins' test, and Neer's test. All the lest results were negarive. Dr. Cohen performed range of motion testing on pla1l1tiJfDoJ11lllgllez' cervical and thoracolumbosacral spine and len shoulder using a goniometer. \Vith respect to the plaintiff Dominguez' cervical spine, Dr. Cohen imilcated that t1exion and extensIOn were 50 degrees (nol"l11aI4S6S degrees); right and left lateral bcndlllg were 45 degrees (normal 40-52 degrees); and right and lell r01<1l1on\verc SO degrees (normal 63-93 degrees). Regmdl11g plaintiff Dominguez' thoracolulllbos,lCral sp111e,he indicated that range of motion testing showcd flexion to 70 degrees (normal S] -g I dcgrees); extensIOn to:;O degrees (normal 28-38 degrees); right and left lateral bending to 30 degrees (nor111,11 113h degrees); and right and left rotation to 30 degrees (up to 30 degrees normal). With rcSpCcl!o pbilltifl DOllllnguc/ le1t shoulder Dr Cohen IndIcated that cxallllllation of tile left shoulder revealed fonvard elevation to I()Odel.',rees (normal 162-172 del.';rees); back\vard elevation to 60 degrees (normal 5()-74 ~ ~ degrees): ,lbduction to 185 degrees (normal 177- J 91 degrees); adductIOn to 30 degrees (up to 30 dcgl\xo: normal); external rO!<ltion to ]00 degrees (norl11aI96-112 degrees); and l1'lternal rotation to 65 degrees (normal M-74 degrees). ~. l!cre, detendant hlilcd to ma~e a prima j-~\eieshowing that plaintiff Domll1gue/.'. did 110tSUSt,ll]],I serious injury \vithin the meaning oflnsur,ll1ce Law 5102 (d) (see Reitz II S'eagate Trucliillg, /11('., supra) Dr. Cohcn's report is IIlsulTlClent to sustalll defendant's prima f-ilcle burden. !\s discussed above, Dr. Cohen's comparative analysls orthe plaintilfDornillgllcz' range of motion to the purponed IlOrlll,lI range of 1110tlon for the partIcular body part that \Vas bel1lg tested lacked "spec 1flcity" III that Ill' did 1101 compare the purported limItation to a "definitive" normal reading (see Lee 11.1\.1 & ,1-'1 uto A Coach, .\'II Jm). Moreover, ()lthOllgh p lamtl ff DOllllllguc7 cia iIlled In IIIe b I!I of particulars t Ilat s Ile / suslalned lumbar radiculopathy as a result- ortlm; accident, the defcnz!<lllt has no! submitted {I n:port l'rul11 ,1llCllrologist \<vl1o examined plall1tiffDolllinguez ruling out the cl<ul11ed ncurologtcallll.lury (set' * Browt/allll' v Caut/lira, .\/lpm, Lawyer I' Albany OK Cab Co., slIj)m). Oil August 12.2010, approximately three years atkr the subJcct (lcCldcllt, ckl'cildanl's e.x;llllllllllg onhopedist. Dr. klClC Cllh.:n. examined plcunttflSantana using certain orthopedic and neurologicil tesls. [* 5] Carmona v Amato Index No. 08-25671 Page 5 including ~lralght kg reusing test, Impingement signs. Hawkins' test, Neer's test, Tind's fest, and Phalent's lest. All the test results were negative. Dr. Cohen performcd range ormation testing on plaliltitTSantana's ccrvlcal and lumbar spine, right sboulder, and right wrist using a gonIOmeter. 'vVith respect to the plamtitI Santana's eel'vical spll1e, Dr. Coben indicated that tlexion and extensIOn were 50 degrees (norll1aI45-65 degrees); right and left lateral bending were 45 degrees (norl11aI40-52 degree's); and nght and left rotation were 80 degrees (norma163-93 degrees). Regarding plaintilTSantana's lumbar spine. he ll1dicated that range of motion testing showed J-1exiol1to 75 degrees (normal 51-X I degrees); hyperextension to 30 degrees (normal 28-38 degrees); right and left lateral bending to 3(J degrees (normal 22-36 degrees); and nght anclleft rotation to 30 degrees (up to 30 degrees normal) With n.. 'spect to plailltiff Santana's nght shoulder, Dr. Cohen indicated that examination of the nght shoulder revealed forward elevation to 165 degrees (normal 162-172 degrees); baek\\'arcl elevation to h{) degrees (normal 56-74 degrecs); abduction to I ~5 degrees (normal 177-191 degrees); adduction to 30 degrees (up to 30 degrees normal); external rotation to 95 degrees (normal 96-112 degrees); and lllterJl(l1 rotation to (is degrees (normal 64-74 degrees). With respect to plaintitrSantana's right wrist, Dr. ('ohl:11 Indicated that examillatioll of the right wrist revealed dorsil1exion to 75 degrees (normal 67-81 <kgrces): palmar tlexion to 75 degrees (normal 68-82 degrees); radial deViation to 20 degrees (normal 17-25 degrees): ulnar deviation to 35 degrees (normal 31-39 degrees); and pronation and Supll1ation to 90 degrees (normal 90 degrees). Here, defendant failed to make a pnma hlcie sho\ving that plallltiff Santana did not slistalll ,1 serious injury \,,/ithll1 the meaning of Insurance Law ~ 5102 (d) (see Reitz l'Scagate TrJlcking, II1c., \'l/jJra). Dr. Coben's report is insufficient to sustalJ1 defendant's pnma t1lcie burden. As discussed abovc, Dr. Cohen's comparative analysis of the plall1tiff Santana '5 range of l1lotJOn to the purported normal range of 1110tion for the particular body part that was bell1g tested lacked "specltlcity" in that he did not compare the purported limitation to a "definitive" normal rcadll1g (.'we Lee v M & 1l'JAuto Coach, slIpm). Moreover, although plamtiffSantana claimed in the bill of particulars that she sustained cervical and lumbar radlculopathy as a result ofthrs aCCIdent, the defendant has not submitted a report !"i'om a neurologist who examined plaintiff Santana rulll1g out the Cla1l11edneurological llljury (.1'('(' Broll'dume l' Camlunt, SUjJm; Lawyer v Albany OI( Cab Co., .\'lIpra)_ Inasmuch as defendanl fliled to meet his prima flcie burdcn, it is unnecessary to consider Whelhl:r the papers submitted by plailltiffs 111 opposition to defendant's motion for summary .Judgment \verc sufficient to reuse a tnable Issue of fact (seeMcMilliall v NaparllllO, 61 AD3d 943, i'\79 N'{S2d 152 [2d DCpl 20091; Yong Deok Lee l' Singh, 56 AD3d 662, 867 NYS2d 339 [2d Dept 2(081). Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied. Plailltifl'onl-ile counterclaIm, Carmona, moves (# 0(3) for an ordcr gr:ll1ting Slll1l111~lry .JlldglllCllL, illlt'l" (Ilia, disllllssing the eOll1plall1L(sic) and all cross elalills asserted by plal1l1iffSantana <lgains( I1llll on the ground that pla1l1tiffSantana has not sustained a serious injury as defined 111 Insur,lllce Lnv ~ 51 ()2 (dl. Plallltlfr Oll the counterclaim, Carmona, failed to :,;ublllit a complete copy of the pkadlllgs (s('e CPLR .1212 [b'[; Fiber Consultants, Inc. l' Fiber Optl!k Interconnect Corp_, S4 AD3d 1153,924 NYS2d 276 pd Dept 2011 L Wider~'Heller, 24 AD3d 433, 805 NYS2d 130 [2<1[kpt ::ZU05]). PlallltilT on the counterclaim, Carmona, b_lled to submit a copy oral I cross claIms asserted by pl,lintiITSant,111<1 ag,lll1st hllll, without which it is not pOSSIble to dctermine whether summary .Judgmcnt is warranted. III [* 6] ClrIll01l:l v Amato Index No ()X-1S()71 P<'lge () vie\v of till: furc:goltlg, the mottOll by plallltiJTol1 the coullt<:rcl~l1111, artl10n~l, li)r SlIllllll(lry judgment C is dClllCd. Pia i111fTon the coullterc! a lilT, Carmona, al so cross- moves (# 0(4) for sUlllmary j udglllen L II! Ie j" t (Sf() and all cross claims asserted by P 1<'1111111'f S:1l11anaagalilst 111m Oil the ground t!lat p!allltilfSantana has not sustalned:1 serious injury ,IS defined 111 Insurancc Law ~ 5101 (Lil. To the c.\tcnt the moving party, p1aintltfon tbe COlillterclalll1, Carmona, ill thiS cross lllotlon (# ()()4) sceks tile S,llllC ['clicf as IS sought in his Illotion (# 0(3), the Il1stant cross Illol'iun IS dell led as rec!um!:llll. alia, dlsllllssing the compblilt

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.