Forman v Rizvi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Forman v Rizvi 2012 NY Slip Op 31388(U) May 7, 2012 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 021893/10 Judge: Randy Sue Marber 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] SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU Present: HON. RADY SUE MARBER TRIAL/IAS PART 14 JUSTICE ELENITA FORMN and ALAN FORMN Index No. : 021893/10 Plaintiffs, Motion Sequence... Motion Date... 03/23/12 -against SYED A. H. RIZVI Defendant. Papers Submitted: Notice of Motion......... .................... ...... ..... Affirmation in Opposition.......................... Reply Affirmation...................................... Upon the foregoing papers , the Defendant's motion , seeking an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 and Aricle 51 of the Insurance Law of the State of New York, granting summar judgment in favor of the Defendant , Syed A. H. Rizvi , and dismissing the Plaintiffs complaint on the ground that the injuries claimed by the Plaintiff, Elenita Forman (" Mrs. Forman ), do not satisfy the " serious Law 51 02 (d), is injury " threshold requirement of New York Insurance determined as hereinafter provided. The Plaintiff, Mrs. F orman , alleges that she sustained serious personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident on October 24 2009. This action was commenced by the filing [* 2] ofa summons and complaint on November 24 2010. Issue was joined by the service of the Defendant's answer on or about January 12 2011. The Plaintiff claims in her verified bil of pariculars that she sustained the following injuries: lumbosacral arthropathy; C6/C7 disc herniation; L5/S 1 disc herniation; left C6/C7 radiculopathy; P. ; bilateral carpal tuel syndrome; traumatic myofacial pain syndrome; left anle arthropathy; both knees arthropathy and post traumatic stress disorder. In support of the motion for summar judgment, the Defendant submits the affirmed report of Salvatore Corso , an orthopedist who conducted an orthopedic examination ofthe Plaintiff on behalf ofthe Defendant. Dr. Corso performed quantified range-of-motion testing on the Plaintiff s cervical spine , thoracolumbar spine , right knee , left knee and left anle using a goniometer , compared his findings to normal range-of-motion values and concluded the Plaintiffhad normal ranges of motion. Based on Dr. Corso s clinical findings and medical records review , he diagnosed the Plaintiff with resolved strains ofthe cervical and lumbar spine , resolved sprain ofthe bilateral knee and resolved sprain ofthe left anle with no evidence of an orthopedic disabilty. The Plaintiff acknowledged that he only missed two (2) weeks of work as a result of the accident. On a motion for summary judgment where the issue is whether a plaintiff has sustained a serious injury under the no- fault law , the movant bears the initial burden of presenting competent evidence that there is no cause of action. Hughes v. Cai 31 A. D.3d 385 [* 3] Browdame (2d Dept. 2006); v. 25 A. D.3d 747 (2d Dept. 2006). The proof must Candura, Perez be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-movants. v. Exel Logistics, Inc., 278 2d 213 (2d Dept. 2000). If the movant satisfies that burden , the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate, by the submission of objective proof of the natue and degree of the injur, that she sustained a serious injury or purported injur, in fact , is serious. that there are questions of fact as to whether the Leslie Flores 27 A. D.3d 220 (1st Dept. 2006). The Defendants met their initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that the Plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning See Gaddy v. Eyler 79 N. 2d 955 (1992); Licari v. Ellott, ofInsurance Law 57 N. 51 02 (d). 2d 230 (1982). In opposition to the motion , the Plaintiff submitted the affirmed medical report of Ali Guy, M. D. Dr. Guy conducted an initial examination of the Plaintiff on November 6, 2009, in connection with the injuries sustained as a result of the accident on October 24 2009. The initial physical examination revealed diffuse tenderness , moderate spasm and multiple trigger points in the Plaintiffs knee , neck and lower back. Upon examination of the left Dr. Guy noted healing abrasions and positive crepitation. Furter , the right knee was diffusely tender and positive for crepitation. Straight leg test revealed a significant limitation in range of motion. Dr. Guy also performed range-of-motion testing to the Plaintiffs cervical spine and lumbar spine which revealed significant limitations in the range of motion for those particular body parts when compared to the normal fuction. Dr. Guy s initial assessment was that the Plaintiff suffered multiple traumatic injuries. The Plaintiff received treatment for approximately five months until her no [* 4] fault benefits were denied. Dr. Guy reported that the Plaintiff underwent an MR of her lumbosacral spine on December 5 2009 which revealed a small midline herniated disc in her low back at L5- S 1. The Plaintiff also underwent an MR of her cervical spine on December 2009 which revealed a very small midline herniation at the C6- C71evel. Dr. Guy also performed EMG studies of the Plaintiffs upper and lower extremities which revealed electrical evidence ofleft C7 cervical radiculopathy and left L5S11umbar radiculopathy. Dr. Guy performed a recent examination of the Plaintiff on Januar 12 2012 where range-of-motion testing was performed by use of a goniometer which revealed significant limitations in the range of motion in the Plaintiff s cervical and lumbar spine. Dr. Guy opined that the Plaintiffhas achieved maximum benefit from physical therapy with regard to the cervical and lumbar areas. In Dr. Guy s medical opinion , the Plaintiff sustained a permanent injury to her cervical spine and lumbosacral spine with permanent restriction of motion. According to Dr. Guy, the disc herniations are not curable. Based upon his final examination , Dr. Guy s final diagnosis remained C6- C7 disc herniation left C6- C7 cervical radiculopathy, traumatic myofacial pain syndrome , left L5- S I lumbar radiculopathy, post traumatic stress isorder and bilateral carpal tuel syndrome. Dr. Guy concluded , within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff s restrictions in performing her usual and customary daily activities, are a result of the accident that occurred on October 24 2009. He further opined that the Plaintiff can no longer enjoy the usual , customary activities she had been able to [* 5] engage in prior to the accident for at least 90 out ofthe 180 days immediately following the accident. Dr. Guy concluded that the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff are serious in nature and constitute a permanent consequential loss of use of those body organs. Dr. Guy specified the body organ and member for which there has been a significant loss of use including her cervical spine , lumbosacral spine and radiating pain extending to the left arm hand, fingers and down her left lower extremities. Dr. Guy s reported limitations must be considered in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, and are sufficient to defeat the motion See Toure for summary judgment pursuant to Insurance Law ~ 5102. Inc. 98 N. 2d345 (2002); 2d 367 (2d Dept. 1997); Lopezv. Senatore 65N. Paretti v. 2d 1017 (1985); Giglietta 221 A. v. Avis Rent A car Sys. Grul/onv. Chu 240 2d 607 (2d Dept. 1995). In addition to Dr. Guy s affirmed report, the Plaintiff also submits the affirmed report of Karen Weingaren, M. , who reported and authenticated the MR results of the Plaintiff s cervical and lumbar spine. In Reply, counsel for the Defendant makes several inaccurate allegations including, but not limited to, that Dr. Guy failed to include recent findings of any significant limitation or restriction of a body par , member or function , that the Plaintiff failed to provide objective evidence ofthe Plaintiff s limitations contemporaneous with the accident , and that the Plaintiff failed to address the gap in treatment. The Defendant's counsel also states that the Plaintiff was involved in a prior 2007 slip and fall on ice wherein her back was injured. Counsel states that the prior accident was not addressed in Dr. Guy s report as a possible [* 6] cause for her injuries. However , by the same token , the Defendant' s doctor , Dr. Corso , also fails to reference any prior accident or injuries that may interrpt the chain of causation. Based on a review of the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving par, the Plaintiff proffered sufficient evidence that raise issues of fact as to whether she suffered a " serious injur " as defined by New York' s Insurance Law as a result of the accident on October 24 , 2009. Notwithstanding anything to the contrar, the Plaintiff failed to present competent medical evidence to support her claim that she was unable to perform substantially all of her daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days following the subject accident. Jackson v. Colvert 24 A. D.3d 420 (2d Dept. 2005). The Plaintiffs deposition testimony and affidavit submitted in opposition to the Defendant's motion establishes that she did not suffer an injury that prevented her from performing substantially all of her customary daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days immediately after the accident. Accordingly, the Defendant' s motion seeking an order granting summar judgment dismissing the complaint is DENIED , except as to any injur that the Plaintiff claims prevented her from performing substantially all of her customar daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days immediately after the accident pursuant to Insurance Law ~ 5102 (d). This constitutes the decision and order of the Cour. Dated: Mineola, New York May 7 2012 ENTERED Hon. Rand S e Marber, J. MAY 0 9 2012 NASSAU COUNTY COUNTY CLERK. ' Of
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.
