Altavilla v West

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Altavilla v West 2018 NY Slip Op 32171(U) September 5, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 152424/2016 Judge: Adam Silvera Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2018 11:49 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 INDEX NO. 152424/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ADAM SILVERA PART IAS MOTION 22 Justice --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 152424/2016 MOTION DATE 08/01/2018, N/A AMANDA ALTAVILLA, Plaintiff, -v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 005 006 PERRY WEST, VENT! TRANSPORTATION INC., Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76 were read on this motion to/for PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,60,61,62,63, 79,80,81, 82, 83, 84, 87,88, 89 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY Upon the foregoing documents, it is ORDERED that defendants' motion, motion sequence 006 is granted and plaintiffs motion, motion sequence 005 is denied as moot. Plaintiff Amanda Altavilla alleges that on April 21, 2014, she suffered a serious injury when a vehicle operated by defendant Perry J. West and owned by defendant Venii Trasport, Inc. came into contact with the rear of a stopped vehicle of which she was a passenger on SR 222/Allentown Pike at its intersection with SR 0073/Lakeshore Drive in the County of Berks and State of Pennsylvania. At the time of the incident plaintiff was domiciled in New Jersey and defendants were domiciled in New York. The incident gave rise to two actions that were filed with this Court. In this action, Action No. 1 plaintiff Amanda Altavilla filed suit on March 21, 2016, against Perry J. West and Venti Transport, Inc. Katherine Altavilla, the driver of the vehicle that was transporting plaintiff at the time of the incident, subsequently filed suit in Action No. 2 on April 19, 2016, against 152424/2016 ALTAVILLA, AMANDA vs. WEST, PERRY J. Motion No. 005 006 1 of 6 Page 1of6 [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2018 11:49 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 INDEX NO. 152424/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018 defendants Perry J West and Venti Transport, Inc. in addition to defendant Venti Towing & Transport Inc. In a Decision/Order dated August 30, 2016, the Honorable Leticia M. Ramirez consolidated the actions for joint discovery and joint trial. Here, in motion sequence 006, defendants in Action No. 1 move to dismiss the case for failure to show the existence of a serious injury as defined under Insurance Law 5102(d). Plaintiff Amanda Altavilla moves in motion sequence 005, pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The decision and order are as follows: The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case" (Winegrad v New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Once such entitlement has been demonstrated by the moving party, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to "demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action or tender an acceptable excuse for his failure ... to do [so]" (Zuckerman v City ofNew York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]). In order to satisfy their burden under Insurance Law § 5102(d), a plaintiff must meet the "serious injury" threshold (Toure v Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002] [finding that in order establish a prima facie case that a plaintiff in a negligence action arising from a motor vehicle accident did sustain a serious injury, plaintiff must establish the existence of either a "permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member [or a] significant limitation of use of a body function or system"]). To demonstrate a "permanent consequential limitation" plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the injury is medically shown to be significant under No-Fault law and "present objective medical proof of a serious injury causally related to the accident in order to survive 152424/2016 ALTAVILLA, AMANDA vs. WEST, PERRY J. Motion No. 005 006 2 of 6 Page 2 of 6 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2018 11:49 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 INDEX NO. 152424/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018 summary dismissal" (Pomme/ls v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 576 [2005] [finding that proof of a herniated disc or other soft-tissue injury alone is insufficient to support a finding of a serious injury under no-fault law. Such objective proof must be supported by evidence of the claimed injury compared to the full range of what is normal]). Here, defendants provide the examination report of Dr. Ashok Anant which states that plaintiff has a normal range of motion, suffered a minor disc bulge that was not from the accident at issue and that plaintiff suffered a cervical sprain from the accident at issue which has since been resolved (Exh G at 2). Additionally, defendants note that plaintiff proffers the medical report of Dr. Steven Waldman which alleges plaintiffs serious injury. Defendants highlight that Dr. Waldman's treatment of plaintiff began 15 months after the accident immediately after she spoke with her attorney. Pursuant to Henry v Peguero, 72 AD3d 600, 603 [1st Dep't 2010], in which the Court citing Pomme/ls v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 572 [2005], found that plaintiffs "fail[ure] to explain the two-week gap between the accident and the commencement of treatment, ... 'interrupt[s] the chain of causation between the accident and the claimed injury." Plaintiff received chiropractic treatment after the incident at issue, however plaintiff has been receiving the same form of chiropractic treatment since 2001-2002 (Exh Eat 33). This Court does not view the chiropractic treatment received after the incident to raise to the level of treatment for the incident at issue. Thus, defendants have satisfied their burden and the burden shifts to plaintiff to demonstrate an issue of fact. In opposition, plaintiff fails to provide an explanation for the 15-month gap in treatment and contests the use of New York's No-Fault law. Plaintiff states that Insurance Law 5104(a) explicitly states that the section applies to "injuries arising out of negligence in the use or operation of a motor vehicle in this state." Further, plaintiff refers to Neumeier v Kuehner, 31 152424/2016 ALTAVILLA, AMANDA vs. WEST, PERRY J. Motion No. 005 006 3 of 6 Page 3 of 6 [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2018 11:49 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 INDEX NO. 152424/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018 NY2d 121, 128 [1972], in which the Court of Appeals addressed motor vehicle cases involving conflicts of choice of law between New York and foreign states and delineated the three following principles: 1. When the guest-passenger and the host-driver are domiciled in the same state, and the car is there registered, the law of that state should control and determine the standard of care which the host owes to his guest. '2. When the driver's conduct occurred in the state of his domicile and that state does not cast him in liability for that conduct, he should not be held liable by reason of the fact that liability would be imposed upon him under the tort law of the state of the victim's domicile. Conversely, when the guest was injured in the state of his own domicile and its law permits recovery, the driver who has come into that state should not--in the absence of special circumstances-be permitted to interpose the law of his state as a defense. '3. In other situations, when the passenger z.nd the driver are domiciled in different states, the rule is necessarily less c'ltegorical. Normally, the applicable rule of decision will be that of the state where the accident occurred but not if it can be shown that displacing that normally applicable rule will advance the relevant substantive law purposes without impairing the smooth working of the multi-state system or producing great uncertainty for litigants. (Cf. Restatement, 2d, Conflict of Laws, P.O.D., pt. II, ss 146, 159 (later adopted and promulgated May 23, 1969).)' Here, the third principle is applicable to plaintiffs case. Plaintiff and defendants are domiciled in different states and thus the law of Pennsylvania, where the accident occurred, should govern unless it can be shown that "displacing the c.pplicable [New York] rule will advance the relevant substantive law purposes without impairing the smooth working of the multi-state system or producing great uncertainty for litigants" (id.) Here, displacing New York law with that of Pennsylvania law would not advance relevant substantive law purposes and would indeed produce great uncertainty for litigants. Allowing for the use of Pennsylvania law runs contrary to the Legislature's intent for enacting New York's no-f(:lult insurance law. One of the law's purposes was to "establish a quick, sure and efficient system for obtaining compensation for economic loss suffered" (Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d 211, 214 [1996]). In order to prevent the overcompensation for lesser injuries and under compensation 152424/2016 ALTAVILLA, AMANDA vs. WEST, PERRY J. Motion No. 005 006 4 of 6 Page 4 of 6 [*FILED: 5] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2018 11:49 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 INDEX NO. 152424/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018 for those with more serious injuries, the Legislature enacted the No-Fault law to demarcate "'rules easily and readily applied to avoid the expenditure of time and money in investigation and determination on which side of the line each particular claim would fall" (Montogmery v Daniels, 38 NY2d 41, 70 [1975]). The application of Pennsylvania law makes ambiguous to New York litigants who affirmatively choose to commence an action in the State of New York, whether they will benefit from New York threshold law or be held to that of a foreign state. In the instant case, Pennsylvania law would allow for this case, which pursuac.t to New York law would not meet threshold and is prime for dismissal, to move forward. To burden the court with a motor vehicle case that does not include a serious injury would be a disservice to the litigants who apprise themselves of the New York State Supreme Court. Further, the use of Pennsylvania law would be contrary to the Legislature's intent and would unnecessarily expend time and money in order to make a determination on which side of the line plaintiffs claim would fall under. As New York No-Fault law applies to the case at b:ir, plaintiff must provide a proper explanation for the gap in treatment in order to make use of the medical report of Dr. Waldman and raise an issue of fact to defeat defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has failed to provide such an explanation. Thus, as defendants have met their burden, defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint is granted and plaintiffs motion on the issue of liability is denied as moot. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs motion, motion sequence 005 for summary judgment on the issue of liability against defendants is denied as moot; and it is further 152424/2016 ALTAVILLA, AMANDA vs. WEST, PERRY J. Motion No. 005 006 5 of 6 Page 5 of 6 [*FILED: 6] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2018 11:49 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 INDEX NO. 152424/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018 ORDERED that defendants' motion, motion sequence 006, for summary judgment is granted and the complaint is dismissed with costs and disbursements to defendants as taxed by the Clerk upon the submission of an appropriate bill of costs; and it is further ORDERED that within 30 days of entry, defendants shall serve a copy of this decision/order upon plaintiff with notice of entry. This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court. 9/5/2018 DATE CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT GRANTED D NON-FINAL DISPOSITION DENIED 152424/2016 ALTAVILLA, AMANDA vs. WEST, PERRY J. Motion No. 005 006 6 of 6 GRANTED IN PART D D OTHER REFERENCE Page 6 of 6

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.