Gersbeck v Cheema

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Gersbeck v Cheema 2017 NY Slip Op 31916(U) September 5, 2017 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 15-17284 Judge: David T. Reilly 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] SJ!ORT FORIV! ORDER INDEX No. 15-17284 CAL. No . l 7-00347MV SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK l.A.S. PART 30 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRES EN T: Hon. DAVID T. REILLY Justice of the Supreme Court MOTION DATE 3-29- 17 (001) MOHON DA TE 5-24-17 (002) ADJ. DATE 6-14-17 Mot. Seq. # 001 - MG; CASEDISP #002-XMD ---------------------------------------------------------------)( LENNY GERSBECK, HAROLD SOLOMON, ESQ. Plaintiff, Attorney for Plaintiff 430 Sunrise Highway PO Box 1100 Rockville Center, New York I 1571 - against - MARTYN TOHER MARTYN & ROSSI Attorney for Defendant 330 Old Country Road, Suite 211 Mineola, New York 11501 TEJ Ps CHEEMA, Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------)( Upon the following papers read on rhese e-filed motion and cross motion for summary judgment; Notice of Motions/Orderto Show Cause and supporting papers dated March 2. 20 I 7; Notice ofCross-Motion and supporting papers dated March 17, 2017 ; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers_ ; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers dated May 25, 2017 otiou) it is. ; Other_; (a11d after hearing cot111sel i11 snpport and opposed to the rH ORDERED that the motion by defendant for !'ummary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a ··serious injury.. as defined in Insurance L~w § 5102 (<.l) is granted; and it is further ORDERED that the cross-motion by plaintiff for an order granting summary judgment in his favor on the issue of liability is denied, as moot This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when his vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle owned and operated by defendant. The accident allegedly occurred on October 16, 2014 on the eastbound portion of Belt Parkway near the flatbush Avenue exit, in the County of Kings. New York. By the bill of particulars, plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the accident, he sustained various serious iitjuries and conditions, including bulging discs at levels L4-L5 and LS-SI , radiculopathy at level L5-S1 , and left ankle dorsiflexors. [* 2] ( ;crbc.:d \ ( ·11ccnw Inc.k.'\ t\'u. 15- 1728.+ Pagl' 2 lkli.:11<la11t muws for ~u111111ary judg1111:nt dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a .. serious i11iury .. as defined in Insurance Law ~5 l 02 (J). Insurance La\v ~ 5102 (d) ddi ncs "serious inju ry" ' as ··a personal injury which results in death: <lismcmherrm:nt: significant dis fi gur~mcnt: a fracture: loss ol'a letus: permanent loss oC usc ora body organ. member. !'unction or system; permanent eonscqw::ntial litnitalion of use or a body organ or mcmbl'r: signilirnnt limitation or use ot"a bo<ly function or system; or a mec.lically determ ined i r ~jury or impairment of a non-pcrmanclll nature whit:h prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material ads which constitutc such person's usual and customary daily act ivities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immed iately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment. In order lo recover under the ··permanent loss oruse'' category, plaintiff must dcmonstralc a total loss or usl! of a body organ, member, function or system ( Ober~J' v Ba11gs A mbulance. 96 N Y2d 2C)5, 717 NYS2d 378 f20011). To prove the extent or degree of physical limitation with respect to the .. permanent conseq uential limitat ion oCuse of a body organ or member·' or a ·'significant li mitation or use ora body function or system"' categories, either a specific percentage of the loss ornmgc of motion must be ascribed. or there must be a sufficient description of the "qualitative nature'' of plai nti1T's limitations, wi th an objective basis. correlating plaintiffs limitations to the normal function. purpose and .2011 J). A minor, mild or slight use or the body part (see Perl v Melter. 18 NY3d 208, 936 NYS2d 655 [ limitation of use is considered insigniticant within the mean ing of the statute (Licari v E lliott. 57 NY2d 230. 455 NYS2d 570 f 19821; Cebro11 1· Tu11cogl11, I 09 AD3d 631. 970 NYS2d 826 [2d Dept '.WU J). On such a motion for summary judgment, the defendant has the initial burdcn of making a prima focic showing. through the submission of evidence in admissible form, that thc injurcc.1 plaintiffdi<.l not sustain a ..serious injury"' within the meaning offnsurancc Law§ 5 102 (d) (see Gad<(,1 v /~pier. 79 NY2d 9)5. 582 NYS2d 990l1992 J: ll k/Jtar i : Santos. 57 /\D3d 593. 869 NYS2d 220 f2d Dept 20081 ). The dcfcndanl rnny satisfy !his hu rdcn by submitt ing the plaintiffs deposi tion testimony and the affirmed medical repo rt of"thc Jckndanl's own examining physician (see M oore 1· Ediso11 , 25 /\D.3d 6T2. 8 11 NYS2d 72.+ 12d Dept 20061: Farozes l' J<amran. 22 /\ D3d 458, 802 NYS2d 706 [2<.l Dept 20051). The :1cic sh<.)\ving requires the denial or the motion rega rdless or the surticicncy failure tn make such a prima 1 or the opposing papers (SL'<! Wi11 egrad I' Nell' York U11ii• 1 ed. Ctr.. .rn;m1: Boone I' New York Ci~1· Tr. . ll . !ut!r .. '.2(1_'- .t\D2J ~6 :1_ (,02 '.'!YS2d 7}! !2d Pcpt !Q<><>j'. I kr1..·. dcli:11da11t nwdl' a prim a 1:1-:il' slHm·ing !hat pl ninti n did not sustain a s-:nous injury " ·i1hi11 lhc meaning or Insurance I .aw~ 5 102 (d) through the anirmed report ol"dc!Cndant" :; C.'\:llllin ing ph ysician (see Ba;/ey 1• Islam. <J<) 1\ D3d (,33. 953 NYS2d 39!1st Ocpl 201 2 f: Sierra " ( ,'ow ;,ale-:, First U m o. 71 .'\D. d8<l4. WJ:'i . YS2d 8<'> [2d Dept 20101: Stt~fl 1 • l'.\·/ma . 5<J AD3d 61 -L 87..J. 'YS2d 180 1 !2d I kpt .2()()() [ ). On NP\·cmher 16. 20 I f1. appn>\inwkly tWP years ;lfkr the suhj1..'et uccidcnt. dd~ndant·~ cxarnin ing Prthopcdist, lk \fotthC\\ Slwlnick_ c:\am inc:d plaintiffnnd 1x:rl(lr1111..·d certain orthopc...'d ic and ncurolugical tests . including Spurling·s lest and the straight lcg rai sing test. Dr. Sknln ick friund that :ill the tes t results m:rc negative or normal. and that there was no spas111 nr tcmkrncss in pl:1in1ifL-; c1;1Tic<1 I and lumbar regions. lk Skolnick al sn p1;rfor111~.:d range pf'nwtion tcsting 1111 plaintil'f"s cervical and lumbar regions and a11kks. w.;ing a µoniuml'lcr ll) 1111.'. ctsurc his joint 1110, · ~mc...'nl. [* 3] < inb1.·ck ,. t ·hl't'ma Index J\.o. 15-1728-+ flag.1.· 3 Dr. Skolnick found that plaintiffcxhibikd normal joint f'unction in his cervical and lumlx1r reg.ions and ankles. Dr. Skolnick opinc<l that plaintiff had no onhopcdic disahilit) at the time llr the examination (see Willis 1· New Yorh' ('i~1· Tr. Autlt.. I-+ /\DJd ()96, 789 NYS2d 223 j1d Dept 2005 j). Further. at his deposition . plaintiff testified that following: the accident ht: did not miss any time from work. I le tcstilie<l that two wt:cks al'ler the acciden t he lirsi saw a chiropractor and has received physical therapy and chiropractic treatment for over approximately two years. I le also tcstilit:d that since the accident. he cannot jog, stand or sit for long periods or time. and pick up his kids who weigh approximately 60 pounds. lie has difficulty bending and picking up objects, vacuuming and sweeping. Pia inti IT's d~position testimony established that his injuries did not prevent him from performing ··substantially all" or the material acts constituting his customary daily activities during at least 90 out or the first 180 days fol lowing the accident (see Bums v McCabe, l 7 J\D3d I l I I, 794 NYS2d 267 I4th Dept 20051; Curry v Velez. 243 A02d 442, 663 NYS2d 63 [2d Dept 19971). Thus, defCndant met his initial burden or establishing that plaintiff did not sustain a permanent consequential limitation of use ofa body organ or member or sigrnificant limitation of use ofa hody function or system, and that he was not prevented from performing su bstantially all of his usual and customary daily activities for 90 of the first 180 days following the accident within the meaning or fnsurancc Law ~5102 (d) (see Gonzalez I' Green , 24 /\D3d 939, 805 NYS2d 450 [Jd Dept 2005 j). The burden. therefore, shi1ted to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact (see Gtu!t~J' v Eyler. supra). !\plaintiff c laiming injury within the "limitation of use'' categories must substantiate his or her complaints or pain with objective medical evidence showing the extent or degree or the limitation of movement caused by the injury and its duration (see Ferraro v Ridge Car Sen•., 49 J\D3d 498, 854 NYS2d 408 j2d Dept 20081: Mejia v DeRose. 35 AD3d 407. 825 YS2d 772 r2<l Dept 2006]: Laruffa 1· Yui Mi11g Lau, 32 /\DJd 996. 821 NYS2d 642 [2d Dept 20061: Cerisier v T/1ihi11, 29 /\DJd 507. 815 NYS2d 140 f2d Dept 2006/). To prove significan t physicnl limitation, a plaintiff must present either objective quantitative evidence of the loss of range of motion and its duration based on a recent CX<llll inalion or tht.: plaintiff or a SU flicicnl dcscri pl ion of' the "'qua]itati Ve na(UrC" 0 j' pJa inti ff' S limitations. with an o l~jectivc basis. correlating plaintiffs limitations to the normal function. purpose and USC or the hody part (Sl'<' Perl I' Melter. supw: Toure \'A 1•is Re11t A Car 5)·stems, Inc. ' 98 NY2d 345. 7-+6 ' YS2d 8()5 I:2002 I: Rm·elo I' Volc_r. 83 1 l)Jcl I 03·.J.. 921 NYS2d 322 [2d lkpt '.201 I r ) . A Ill innr. \ :ni!d C!' slie.ht !irnil:H!t'!1 <'!°use is r;<1nsi1..krcd 1 11<:: 1 ~nilicrin 1 within the 111l.!(llling oi'thc SlallltC (See Ucari I' F:tliott. s111>r<1 : Cehro11 ,. T1111cog/11. s111wa) . l·\1rthermn rc. a plnintiff claiminµ serious injury who <..-c11s1..''i 1rcatmc11t 0th.-r the ;1lT idcn1 must oiler a re:1.snna hk 1.''<pla11atio1 lilr lrn\ ·i 11~ dl lll<..' 'n I Pomml'fl'> 1• l'ae:. ..4 1 ~Y3d SM. 57-J.. 7<J7 NYS'.2d 380 12005 I: St.!(' Vasque:,. Jo/111 Doe # /. n 1\ 1>.ld I o.n. I)()) NYS2d 188 f.J.d lkpt .20 101: Rfraa 1· Buslrll'ick Rit~~e11•ood Props., 111c.. 63 1\f)~d 712. 880 NY~2d I~<> j2d l)cpt ].()()l) , ). Plaint iff oppnscs the 1 1wtion. mgui11g dcll·ndant's e:o;pl'1t·s rt.:port is insunicient J(l 111cct his burden nn the motion. i>lni11ti1Ltiso argues that tlw medical rqmns prepared hy his tr1.\.1tiug physici1 ms and chiropractors raise ;1 triable issue as to \\'hcthcr he suffered injury \Vithin the ..significant limitati\ln nl' us<..' .. catqwr~ of l11.sur;.111ec l.m\ ~ )JO: (d). In opposition. plaintifTsubmits. inta 11/ia. the S\\'(lf'll ~v!RI repor! of' Dr. h.1111011d I( no pp. the S\VOl'll u niJu vi t o t· his ch irnpractor. Dr. .lam~s Rogers. the sworn [* 4] (1crbcc k \ ( hct:>nw Index No. 15-l 7.28-i Page -l alfo..la\·it or his chiropraL'.tor. Dr. Carla Danielson. an<l thc s\\'orn artir111ation ol his physician. Dr. Joseph Car<linak. Dr. Rogcrs·s alfo.lavit sets fonh plaintiffs complaints and the signilicant limitations in hi s cervical and lumbar sp inal function due to the rn:cident, measured during range of motion test in g pcrfor111cd :tl his initial consultation on Novcmbl!r 7. 2014. During his initial consultation, Dr. Rogers cxami ned plainti IT and pcrl(mm:d certain orthopedic and neurological tests, including Kemp· s test. Braggard's test, an<l a straight kg raising test, which were all positi ve. When Dr. Rogers re-examined plain!iff on December 20, 201-l. he also pt.:rformc:d range of motion !esting on plaintilrs cervical and lumhar regions, an<l found that he continued to exhibit range or motion restriction s. I lowcvcr, Dr. Rogers failed to state how he measured the joint function in plaintiffs t.:ervical and lumbar regions at his initial examination and rc-c;-.;amination. The Court can only assume that Dr. Rogers 's tests were visual ly observed with the input of plaintiff. The foil ure ro state and describe the tests used wi II render the opinion insufficient (see Hamey,, Tombstone Pizza C017J. , 279 AD2d 609, 719 NYS2d 704 [2cl Dept 200 I I: Herman v Cit urclt , 276 AD2d 471 . 714 N YS2d 87 f2d Dept 2000 j). In his affidavit. Dr. Danielson staled that she performed elcctrodiagnostic testing on plaintiff on December 30, 20 I 4, which revealed lhal there was a radiculopathy at left I,5-S I. I fowevcr. the mere existence or a herniated disc. a bulging disc, or radiculopathy is not evidence of a serious injury in the absence or object ive evidence or the extent of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the injury and its duration (see Keitlt l' Duval. 71 /\D3d I 093, 898 NYS2d J 84 1_2d Dept 201 Of; Casimir v Bailey, 70 AD3d 994, 896 NYS2d 122 [2cf Dept 20 101 ; Rivera v Busltwic.k Ridgewood Props., Inc.. supra). Dr. Danielson offered no range or motion testing results in her reports (see Barrett 1 Jea1111ot. l8 AD3<l 679. 795 NYS2d 727 /2d Dept 2005 ]). 1 Dr. Can.linak·s affirmation st:t forth plaintiffs complaints and the findings. including the positive results or the straight leg raising test performed at his initinl consultation on August 6, 20 IS. approximately I 0 months alter the subject accident. Although Dr. C'urdinalc stated that plaintiff -:xhibilcd diminish..:cl range or motion in his thoracic and lumbar regions. he offered no range of motion testing results (sec id). Thus . plaintiff foikd to provide any medical evidence concerning his condition 1.:ontcmp(mlllcous to the accident (see Perl 1• Melter. supm: Camilo v Villa Livery Corp.. 118 AD:ld 586. <>87 NYS2d 16-l [ lst Dept 201 4J ). M l~! rcpurt. dakd lnn:rnh•.:r 18. 201 -L oflk Knopp indicatL·d that pl<1i11tiffh:ld bulging ,l :s ~· s ;:t kn·l s I -l -! 5 and l 5 -S I. 1'11c mere c:-:istcncc of :J hcrni~Hcd dist.·. :1 l't1lgi11g disc or radirnlupath: i:-; not evidence (l r a serious injury i 11 the absence or ol~jccti vc evidence ()rt he ex ten( or the a lkgcd ph: si-:al lim itatin11s result ing. fn11n the injury and its Juration (see A:eit!t i• Dt11'(fl. s1111ru: Casimir 1• Bailey. .rn;m1: Rfrera 1· fluslrn•ick Ridge1mod Props., Inc.. .rn;mt). Mnn.:o\·cr. Dr. Knopp opined that --~1id hul~!ing discs\\ Ct"l' dcµcncrntiw . Pia inti rr..; l'\"idcncc is insu!lici...:nl [Cl r~tiSL" a triahk i:-.:-:uc ur l~ld a:-. 10 "hL·ther plai ntiff suswined a :-.crious i11jury. 'l"li..: Finally. plainti IT faikd t11 1lffcr competent evidence that he sustai ned 11onpcr111a11cnl injuries that kit him unahk to p..:rforrn his normal d:.til) rn.:ti' ities it)r at least C)() or the 180 days i111mctfot.:l:l(1ll()\\ in g the w.:eidcnt (st'e Joh11 1• Li11de11 . 11-l AD.>d 598. I NYSJd ~7-l I ~d Dept :2015[: II C/11111g . [* 5] \ icrhl'l'k \' ( 'hcc111 a lmkx No. i 5-1718-+ Pagt: 5 Um 1• Clrrabaszc:. <)) ,\J)Jd 950. 9-t..J. NYS2d 236 !2d Dept 20 12): Rh-era 1• Bus!twicli Ridgewood Props., /11c. . s111mt) . Thus. cldcndanl·s motion for summary ,iudgm<.:nl based on plaintitrs fa ilure lO meet tlK serious injury threshold is granted. and th<.: complaint is dism issed. l\cco rdingly. p lain t if'f~s cross motion for su mmary judgrncnL in his favor tl11 the issue of liabili ty is den ied. as rn ~>ol. ---·) Jlatc<l iA bn,_k_ <I; K017 /!(/ _ X FINAL DISPOSITION 4£c;V~noN. DA,1i"o1·.~y NON-FINAL 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.