Fernandes v Ramsahai

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Fernandes v Ramsahai 2016 NY Slip Op 30498(U) March 2, 2016 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 12-17443 Judge: Joseph Farneti Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SI IOR f FORM ORl>FR INDEXNo. CAL. No. 12-17441 15-000?0MV SUPREME COURT- STATE Of NEW YORK I.A.S. PART 37 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. JOSEPH FARNETI Acting Justice Supreme Court MOTION DATE 3-26-15 ADJ. DATE 7-30-15 Mot. Seq. #004 MD #005 XMD #006 XMG ---------------------------------------------------------------)( DA YID HOROWITZ, P.C. MANUEL FERNANDES and ANA FERNANDES, Plaintiffs, Attorney for Plaintiff 276 Fifth Avenue, Suite 405 New York, New York l 0001 MARTYN, TOHER & MARTYN & ROSSI Attorney for Defendant 330 Old Country Road, Suite 2 11 Mineola, New York 11501 - against - SUNITA RAMSAHAI, Defendant. RUSSO, APOZNANSKI & TAMBASCO Attorney for Plaintiff on the Counterclaim 115 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 300 Melville, New York 11747 ---------------------------------------------------------------)( Upon the following papers numbered I co~ read on these motions for summarv judgment : Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause and supporting papers 1 - 12 ; Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers -11.: 23: 24 - 35 ; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 36 - 39; 40 - 41 ; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 42 - 43 · 44 - 45· 46 - 47 : Other _ ; (aud afte1 heat iug eotmsel in st1ppo11 a11d opposed to the 111otio11) it is, ORDERED that the motion (seq. #004) by defendant Sunita Ramsahai and the crossmotion (seq. #005) by plaintiff on the counterclaim Manuel Fernandes for summary judgment in their favor on the serious injury claim asserted by plaintiff Ana Fernandes are denied; and it is further [* 2] I crna11dcs \ Ramsahai l11de' N(>. l 2- 17-l-n l'ag.c 2 ORDFR/:'/) Lhal 1hc t:rnss-motit111 (seq. 100(1) hy plaintiff on the eoun1en:laim. Manuel 1 Fcrnancks. for su111111<1r> judg.111L·n1 i11 his li.1,·nr on the countcn.:laim is gra111cd. Plaimiffs \lanuel Fcrnancks an.J /\nu h.:nian<lcs <.:om1rn:nccd this rn.:tio11 to n.:t:o,·cr damagl.:s fhr pcrsonal injuries thcy allcgc<lly sustainc<l as the result of a motor \'chicle acci<lcnt thut <ll't:urrcd on Filth 1 \\cnuc. at its intersection \\ith Spur Dri\'c South. in the 'I O\\ll of Islip on t\pril 7. 2010. The aL·cidcnt allegedly happened \\'hen the vehicle driven by <ld\.:ndant Sunita Rumsahai madl.: a suddl.:n ldt turn in the palh or Lhc vehicle <lriven by plaintiff Manuel Fcrnantks as it entered the intersection wi th Spur Driw South. Plainliff J\11:1 Fernandes allegedly was riding as a passenger in the vehicle driven by ManUL'I Fernandes. her husband. at the time of the col Iis ion. t\s relevant 10 the instant motions. the hi 11 or parlicu la rs alleges J\ na Fcrm111<lcs suffered ,·arious injuries am! symptoms <luc to the uc<:icknt. including disc herniations at lc\Tls CS-C6 and C6-C7. cervical rn<liculopathy. an<l right shoulder lcndinosis. It further alkges she was confined to her home for four months due to her injuries. lkli.:n<lan1 now moves for summary judgment dismissing the claim asscnc<l by t\na Fernandes on the ground she did not sustain ..serious injury" within the meaning Jnsurnncc Law~ 5 102 (d). Dclcndant's subm issions in support of thl.: mution include copies orthc pleadings and the bi 11 ol' particulars. a transcript of J\na Fernandes. deposit ion testimony. and u sworn medical report prepared hy Dr. l:dward 'l oriel lo. t\t defendants· request. Dr. Toriello. an or1hopcdic surgeon. conclucte<l an independent orthopedic examination or J\na Fernandes in Cktohcr ~013 and rc\'ic\\cd medical rccor<ls and reports related lo her allcge<l injuries. or Plaintiffs oppose the motion. arguing <lcli.:ndant's submissions arc insufficient to establish as a mailer of law that J\na Fernandes did not suflcr "serious injury.. as a result or the accident. Plaintiffs also argue evidl!ncc submitted in opposition to defendant's motion raises a triable issue as to whether she sulfored injury within the ··li mitat ion of use" categories or the 90/ 180 category or Insurance Law§ 5 102 (d). In opposition.plaintiffs submit an affirmation of her treating orthopedist. Dr. J\lcxandrc de Moura. and an uncertified copy of the police report for the su~jec t acci<lrnl. The Court notes the pol ice accident report record is inadmissible and was not considered in the <lctcrmination or defendant" s cross motion (see CPU~ 4518: Adobea " J1111el. 11-l AD3d 818. 980 . YS2d 56-l l2d Dept 20141: Clteul Soo Kang v Viola11te. 60 J\D3<l 991. 877 YS2d J5-1 l2d Dept 20091). Relying on the same arguments and the saml' submiss ions as defendant, particularly the medical report 01· Dr. l· dward Torie llo. Manuel Fernandes. as plninti IT on the : counterclaim. cross-rnm·cs for an order dismissing .1\na Fl.!mandcs· cause or action l(lr failure to meet the serious injur~ threshold. Manuel Fernandes also cross-moves for an order granting summ<ir;. judgment in his fovor on the counterclaim. arguing that delenda111·s negligence in failing w yidd the right or ,,·ay an<l making a sudden left turn al the intersection when it \\"<l!'> not sale lo do so was th!..! sole proximate cause of the acci<lcnl. S\\'Ol'll [* 3] Fernandes \ Ramsahai Index '.Jo. 12-17·1-n Page~ It is for the wun to determine in th1.: first instance whl'thcr a plaintiff claiming pcrsorwl i11ju1") as a result ora motor \chick ac.:c.:i<lcnl has cslahlishcd a1wi111<1/ude case that he or she sustained ··serious injur~ ··and ma) mailllain a common la" ton action (see Licari 1· Elliott. 57 1\Y2d 23ll. -155 NYS2d 570 I l (>821: Tippi11g-Cestari v Killte1111y. 17-1 /\D2d 66~. 571 NYS2d 52512d Dept l(Nl J). lnsurnnc.:c l .~lw ~ ~102 (d) defines .. serious injury .. as ··a personal injury \\hich l"L'Stdts in death: cJismemb...:nnclll: signilicant Jisliguremcnt: a li"<H.:turc: loss ol"a fetus: pertllllllL'lll loss or USC or a body organ. llll'll1bcr, function Or system: pcnnanent consequential limitation oruse ora bnd) organ or member: signilicant limitation or use ora hod) runction or syste m: or a 1111.:dically Jet1.:rmincd injury or impairm...:nt ora non-permanent natun: which prevents the injured person from performing substantiall y all ol"the material acts which constitute su<.:h person's usual and customary daily activi ties for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediatL·ly following the occun-cnce or the injury or impairmcn1.·· A <lclendant moving ror summary judgment on the ground that a plain ti Ir s negligem:c claim is barred h~ the No-Fault lnsuranc.:c I .aw bears the initial burden or establishing a primo jade case that the plaintiff did not sustain a ..serious injury"· (see Toure v A vis Rent A C11r .S:rJ.. 98 i Y2d 1-15. 7.+6 NYS2d 865120021: Ciatltly v E'y/er. 79 NY2d 955. 582 YS2<l 990119921). When a dclendunt sc.:eking summary judgment based on the lack or a serious injury relics on the lin<lings or the dclcndanrs own witnesses. "those findin gs must be in admissihlc form. i.e., anidavits and affirmations. and not unsworn reports·· lo Jcmonslratc entitlement to judgment as a matter or law (Pagano I' Kingsbury. 182 /\ D2d 268. 270. 587 NYS2<l 692 f2d Dept 19921). /\ dekndant also may establish enlitlcmcnl lo su mnrnry judgment using the plaintiff's deposition testimony and medical reports and records prepared by the plai nti rr sown physicians (see Fragale,, <ieiger. 288 AD2d 431. 733 NYS2d 90 I j2d Dept 20011: Torres v Micheletti. 208 /\D2d 519. 616 YS2d 1006 j2d Dept 19941: Craft" Brantuk. 195 .t\D2d 438. 600 NYS2J 251 12d Dept 1991 J: Pagano 1 Ki11gsb11ry. 182 AD2d 268. 587 NYS2d 692). Once a ddcndant meets this burc.kn. the plaintiff must present proof in admissible form which creates a materiul issue or fat:t (see <iadt~r 1• /~1·/er. 79 NY2d 955. 582 1 YS2d 990: Paga110 v Ki11gsb111:r. 182 AD2d 268. 587 YS2d 692: s<!e genaal~l ' Zuckerman 11 City of New York . .+<) NY2d 557. ·127 NYS2d s<>5 I 1980IJ. 1 DcJ"cndant"s submissions foil to establish a pri11wfacie case that Ana Fernandes did not sustain serious injury to her cervical spine or right shoulder as a result of the subject accident (see Farra/1 1• l'i11os. I <D /\[)Jd 831. 959 'YS2d 7.+ I !2d Dept 20 I 31: Cruz v Atlm11ced Co11crete Leasing Corp.. IOI /\l)]d 666. 954 NYS2d 491 f2d Dept 20111: Frasca-Nat/um.\· 1 •Nuge11t. 7< 1 Be/111011/e. 45 /\fDJ 825. 84(> /\DJd 651. 909 NYS2d 9J812d l)cpt 2010]; Page 1 YS2d 35 1 I2<l De pl 2007 I). In his arlirmed report. Dr. Toriello states that Ana Fernandes presented at the October 2013 examination with complaints or ··ncck and lcll fsicJ shoulder pain." l lc states. in rl'le' ~uH part. that rnnge 01· motion testing revealed normal joint run et ion in plaint i Ir s <.:ervical region. with "bi lat1.:ral latcr::il bending or 45 degrees. bilateral rotation or 80 degrees. lkxio11or 50 degrees and ~::x tcnsion or 60 degrees \\" complaints or pain at the extremes or motion:· l lc also ith [* 4] h:rna11Lks ' Ran1salwi l!Hk.'\ \>. 12- I 7·H3 stat1.·:-. that palpatiPn L1I' Ana l'erna11des· -;pine n.:,·eakd 1w mu-;ck .spasms or atniph~. and that -;he exhibited normal deep lrndon relkxes. muscle strength. ,tnd sensation in her upper extremities. Further. l>r. I oriel lo stutes that /\ na Fernandes had rul l range or motion in her shoulders. with 150 dcgn.:cs or abduction. 150 tkgn:es or lkx ion. 80 dcgn.:cs (l r internal rotation. 90 deg.r1.·es or c.'\tcrnal rota! ion. -HJ degrees or C.'\lension and :w degrees of adduction. and that there ,,·as no C\'idcm:c or slwukkr instability or impingement. I >r. Torid lo concludes that /\na Fernandes suffered only cervical and right shouluc; strains due to the a<.:<.:idcnt. and that the e.'\amination revealed no c\·idcncc or any mthopedi<.: disahi I ity. 1lowevcr. Dr. Toriello· s report is insurticient to meet delc11da11t ·s burden on the motion. as it foiled to compurc the li ne.l ings orjoint function obtained during his testing or /\na Fernandes' cervi<.:al spine and right shoulder with the accepted normal range or motiLHl measurements for such joints (see A mbrose/Ii 1• Team ft,fas.'·"peq11a. Jue.. 88 /\l>:hl 927. 931 I YS2d 65212<.l Dept 2011 I: Gri.rnle.\' ''City of New YorA. 85 /\D1d 96-L <>25 NYS 2d <>33 j2d Dept 2011 I: Chiara 1• Demago. 70 AD3d 746. 894 YS2d 129 [2<l lkpl 20101: Paxe v Belm onte. 45 /\D3d 825. 846 NYS2d 351 [2<l Dept 20071). Moreover. de!Cndant foiled to present admissible evidence negating the clements or /\na Fernandes' 90/ 180 claim. Signilieantly. the bill of particulars alleges she was conlincd to home for four months. /\t her deposition. /\na Fernandes testified she was confined to home ror about three months alkr the accident. leaving only to attend doctor appointments. and that she began going out more frequently alier she hcgan receiving physical therapy treatments. Despite such allegations. defendant' s expert fo il ed to address the issue of whether /\na Fernandes suffe red an injury within the 90/ 180 day category (see Green e-Manzi v A to Z La11dscapi11g, Ille.. 105 /\Dld 702. 962 N YS2d 645 I2d Dept 201 JI: Cruz v A d vanced Co11crt!le l easing Corp.. I 01 /\D3d 666. 95-t ' YS2d ..+91: Reynolds v Wai S ang Le1111g. 78 AD3d 919. 911 1ys2c.1 431 12<l Dept 20101: Men e:es v Klu111. 67 /\D3d 654. 889 YS2<l 54 [2d Dept 2009): TakaroffvA .M. USA , Ju e.. 63 /\ D1d 1142. 882 YS2<l 265 j 2d Dept 20091: R"lt11u111 v S arpaz. 62 /\Dlc.I 979, 880 NYS2d 125 j2d Dept 20091: Greenidge v Ni1:/rton limo. /11c.. 43 AD}d 1109. 841NYS2d791 I2<l Dept 1007 j). Thus. defendant frli led lo make a pri111aj(1cie showing that /\na Fernandes· daim for damages based on nonpcrmani..:nt injuries is harrcc.I under the o-Fault Insurance Law (see <iree11e-Mt111:,i ,, A to Z l .a11dscapi11g, Inc.. I 05 /\D3d 702. 962 ' YS2d 645: R eyn olds 1• Wa i S"ng l .e1111g, 78 1\DJ<l 919. 911 YS2d 431: Negassi " R oyle. 65 ADJd 1311. 885 YS2d 760 [2d Dept 20091: Ismail 1 Tejeda. 65 /\D3d 518. 882 NYS1d 915 [2d Dept 20091: Takandf' •• ,.t. M. USA , luc.. 63 ADJd 1142. 882 YS'.2d 265). Accordingly, dclcndant's motion for s ummar~ judgment d i smi~sing /\na i-:ernanc.lcs· cause 0L1clion for foilun: to tnc.:d the serious injur~ threshold is dL.:nicd. For the same reasons. Manuel Fernandes' cross-motion for summary j udgmL.:nt dismissing /\na Fernandes· clJim. "hich rdies on the same proof' and legal arguments as dckndm1t · s motion, is denied. 1 /\s lo the <.:ross-mntion seeking summary judgment in favor or Manuel Fcrnanck:s on th...: eountcrelai111 against him. the Vehicle and Trafli<.: Law cslahlishcs stande1rds or care !cir motorists. and an unexrnscd ,·iolation or such standards consti tutes ncgligem:c />l'I' se (see S lrui- [* 5] l·crrnmdcs ' Ramsahai lm.k:-; No. 12-174-n Page 5 Kwan l.ui l'Serro11 t!. 10.i J\l)~d ()20. '):)9 NYS2d 270 l2d Dept 20131: Barbieri,, J'okor111 . 72 /\D3d 8)3. lJ()(l YS2d 31) 12d Dept 20101: Cooga111 Torris i.47 /\DJd M>9. 8.f<J YS2d (>21 12d lkpl 20081 ). Pursuam to Vehicle and Trani<.: Law~ 1141. a <lri' er atkmpting a left turn at an in1t:rscctio11 is n:quircd 10 yil'ld the right of \\ay to a \chicle: approac.:hing from the opposite direction .. whid1 is" ithin the intersection or so dose as to constitute an immediate ha1.ard:· Vehicle and Tralfo.: I .a\\ 1163 proYid<:s that no person shall turn a vehicle at an intersection ··until suc.:h nwvcment c..:an be: made with reasonable safely ... Furthermore. every driver has a c.:ommon law d11ty tu ~i..:e that which should be seen through the proper use of' his or her senses and It) excn.:isc n:asonabk car<: to avoid c..:olliding wi th another vc:hide (see Weigtmd v United Traction Co.. 121 NY VJ. 116 NE 345119 171: S /111i-Kwa11 Lui1· Serron e. 103 /\DJd 6:20. 959 NYS2d no: Co /pan 11 Allied Cent. A mbulette, fil e.. 97 /\D3d 776. 949 NYS2d 124 j2d Dcpl 20 I 2 I: Domt11w 1a 1• Stale of New York. 41 !\ ()Jd 633. 83 8 N YS2d 644 j1d Dept 20071 ). 1 * 1 The C\'ickncc submi tted in support or the cross-motion is suflicicnt to establish u prima .fircie c.:asc that ddendant's negligence in making a left turn directly in the path or plaintiffs' oncoming veh icle. when it was nol reasonably sale to do so. was the sole proximate c.:ausc of tl1L· accicknt (see A m.el 1• Pi.\·torino. I 05 /\03d 784. 962 NYS2d 700 j"2d Dept 2013 I: A h em v lauaia . 85 J\Dld 6%, 924 t YS2d 802 I2<l Dept 201 1l; /(mw v M aggie.\· Paratrausit Corp.. 6J /\D3d 792. 882 YS2d 129 j2d Dept 2009J). /\t the suhjcct intersection. Fifth /\venue has four travel lanes. two running northbound and t\\.O running southbound. as well as left turn lanes fnr northbound and southbound tranic . and Spur Drive South has l\.\'O lanes of travel, one running eastbound and one running westbound. Traflic lights control all four directions of travel at the intersection. Manuel Fernandes testified that prior 10 the accident he was driving his vehicle in the left northbound lane or Fi Hh J\ venue and stopped on the roadway fr>r a couple or seconds. because a school bus traveling in the right northbound Jane had stopped to kt students disembark. I k testified that when he started moving again the tral'lic..: lig ht al the intersection controlling the northbound lanes was green. and that he ohserved defendan t's vch ic..: lc stopped in the southbound turning lane. wailing to make a Jen onto Spur Drive South. Mm1uel Fernandes testified that as his vchic..:lt: entcn.:d lhe int1.:rsection, traveling at approximately 30 to 35 miles per hour. dctcndant made a sudden !cit turn directly across his path. and that. though he forcibly applied his brakes. he could not avoid colliding vvith th~ front right side or h<:r vehicle. DclCndant Sunista Ramsahai te. tilied that before the accident she was driving southbou nd on Firth /\venue and that. imrn<ling lo travel cast on Spur Drive South, shc moved her vehicle into the left turning lane and slopped al the intersection for oncoming trartic . She tcstilied lhut her vehi cle was the firs t vehi cle in the lel't turning. lane. that she wai ted at the intersection l()r t\\·O to three minutes be fo re attempting to make a lell turn. and that she did not obsl.'nc the Fernandes \·chicle us it approac..:hctl from the opposite din:c..:lion . lkll:ndant tcslilied that the accident occurred as she ,,·as in the prrn.:css or making the ten turn. but that she <lid not rcmcmhcr the actual moment or impact with the Fernandes Ychiclc. \Vhcn questioned ahout the traflic.: signal Clmtmlling southbound traffic on Filth /\venuc. plaintilTinitiall) testified that the [* 6] l·'t:nwndcs ,. Ramsahai lmk:-; :\o. I 2-17-1-t'.i Page (1 light \\as gn.:l'll a-; she approal'hcd the intersection. and that it changed ""lo a solid green·· prior lo the a<.:l'itknt. ,\tkr taking a rl·ccss. ddc·1dant testified that the kfl turn light \\·as illuminated as s11L' approached the intcrsel'tion and that it remained illuminated as she \\'<lited to make a ldt tum. She als\> testified that ""the front end·· ol'the passenger si de of her \'l'hick, "from the wheel to the front or the car.··" as damaged in the accident. The Court finds such testimony establishes prinwji1cie that \tlanud Fernandes had the right-of:. ,,·a) a11J was cntitkd to anticipate that c.kfcndant would obey the traffic laws n:quiring her to yidd tu his oncoming vehicle (see Carroll-Batista v Bennett. 122 J\D3d 661. <)95 , YS2d 718 !1d lkpt 20141: Krum '' Maggie.'i Paratrausit Corp.. (>3 /\D3d 792. 882 NYS2<l 129; A risti: abal 1• .'lristizabal. 37 /\1)3d 503. 829 1YS2d 701 !2d Depq. fr denied9 1 Y3d 808. 844 NYS2d 784120071: R11Jso vScibetti. 298 J\D2<l 514, 748 NYS2d 871 !2d Dept 2002 ]: Ce11m•ski 1 Lee. 26(> 1\D2d 424, 698 "'.'JYS2d 868 2d Dept 19991). It further shows that defendant violated Vehicle and ·1ralfo..: I.a\\ ~~ 114 I and 1163 by making a sudden lcli turn as the Fernandes \'chide was passi ng through lhe inters<.:etion, that such negligence was the proximate cause of the subject accident. and that Manuel Fernandes was free of comparative foult (see Foley'' Santucci. I 35 J\D1d 813. 23 NYS3d 338 [2d Dept 20 161 : Ducie v Ippolito, 95 J\DJd I 067. 944 YS2d 275 12d Dept 20121: Socci v Levy. 90 J\D3d 1020, 915 NYS2d 332 [2d Dept 20 1Jl; .Stiles v County of Dutches.\·. 278 J\D2<l 304. 717 N YS2d 325 I2d Dept 2000 J). Contrary lo lhc assertions by defense counsel. defendant's deposition testimony docs not raise a triable issue as to whether Manuel Fernandes was c.:omparntivcly negligent in fai ling to take evasive actions or in entering. the intersection (see Vaiuor v DiSalvo, 79 J\D3d 1023. 914 YS2<l 236 j2d Dept 20101; Yelder '' Walters . 64 /\D3d 762. 883 NYS2<l 290 !2d Dept 20091: Batts 1• Page. 51 J\D3d 833. 858 NYS2d 748 !2d Dept 20081). In particular, the material change in dcfendanl·s deposition testimony alter the recess. namely . that the left turn light was illuminated <luring the entire time she was stoppc<l al the intersection. docs not create an issue as lo whether Manuel Fernandes improperly entered th<.! intersection. as defendant testified that she waited two to three minutes for oncoming' chicles lo pass. that she <lid not sec the Fernandes vd1ick before the collision. ant.I that the right front portion of her vehicle was damaged in the accident (see Rosario v Sehco I. A ssoc.. 305 /\J>'.2d ~07. 761 NYS2<l 607 11 st Dept 2007 I). J\s <.lcl'cndanl lililcd to submit ~\· idcm:c raising a triable issue as to '' hethcr Manuel Fernandes· con<luet was a proximate caust.: ol' thc an.:idcnt. the cross-motion for summary _judgmen t dismissing the countt.:rclaim against Manuel Fernandes is granted. 1 Dated : ~1arch 2. 201(> FINAL lll SPOSITJO ' X NON- FI NAL DISPOSITION

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.