Tiso v Brown

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Tiso v Brown 2020 NY Slip Op 35100(U) January 30, 2020 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Index No. 69634/2016 Judge: William J. Giacomo 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: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2020 09:54 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68 INDEX NO. 69634/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2020 To commence the statutory statutory time time commence the period for appeals as of right right period for appeals as of (CPLR 5513 [a]), you you are are advised (CPLR 5513 [a]), advised to serve serve a copy of this this order, order, with copy of with notice of of entry, entry upon upon all parties. parties. notice I SUPREME YORK SUPREME COURT COURT OF THE STATE STATE OF NEW NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY WESTCHESTER PRESENT: HON. WILLIAM GIACOMO, J.S.C. PRESENT: WILLIAM J. GIACOMO, J.S.C. -----------------------------------------x --------------- ----- --- ---- --- ---------x MARCO A. TISO, TISO, MARCO Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Index No. 69634/2016 69634/2016 Index - againstagainst- Sequence No. NO.11 & 2 Sequence 2 LISA B. BROWN BROWN and JEFFREY BROWN, LISA JEFFREY H. BROWN, Defendants. Defendants. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- xX DECISION & ORDER ORDER DECISION In an action damages for personal defendants move for action to recover recover damages personal injuries injuries (1) the defendants move for summary judgment dismissing of summary judgment dismissing the complaint, complaint, pursuant pursuant to CPLR CPLR 3212, on the issue issue of liability serious injury within the meaning liability and on the grounds grounds that that plaintiff plaintiff did not sustain sustain a serious injury within meaning of Insurance judgment on Insurance Law 5102(d); 5102(d); and (2) the plaintiff plaintiff moves moves for partial partial summary summary judgment issue of liability: liability: the issue Papers Papers Considered Considered Notice of Motion/Affirmation of William A. Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald, Esq./Affidavit Esq.lAffidavit of 1. Notice of Motion/Affirmation William A of Lisa B. B. Brown/Exhibits Brown/Exhibits 1-12; Notice of Motion/Affirmation of Robert W. Folchetti, Folchetti, Esq./Affidavit Esq.lAffidavit of 2. Notice of Motion/Affirmation of Robert of Marco A. Tiso/Exhibits Marco Tiso/Exhibits A-F; 3. Affirmation Affirmation of of Robert A-C; Robert W. Folchetti, Folchetti, Esq. in Opposition/Exhibit Opposition/Exhibit A-C; of William Affirmation of 4. Affirmation William A A. Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald, Esq. in Opposition; Opposition; Reply Affirmation Fitzgerald, Esq. 5. Reply Affirmation of William William A. Fitzgerald, 6. Reply Reply Affirmation of Robert Robert W. W. Folchetti, Folchetti, Esq. Esq.11 6. Affirmation of Factual and Procedural Background Background Factual and Procedural Plaintiff commenced commenced this action to recover recover damages damages for for personal personal injuries injuries as a result result Plaintiff this action of a motor vehicle accident accident that that occurred Avenue of motor vehicle occurred on February February 3, 2014, 2014, on Croton Croton Point Point Avenue Croton-an-Hudson, New New York. in Croton-On-Hudson, Defendant Lisa Brown Brown attests attests that operating her her father-in-Iaw's Defendant that she was operating father-in-law's 1997 time of of the accident. was Toyota Camry Toyota Camry at approximately approximately 9: 15 a.m. at the time accident. The The ground ground was covered with snow. was sleet freezing rain falling. traveled on Route covered with snow. There There was sleet or freezing falling. Defendant Defendant traveled Route exited southbound Croton Point Point Avenue 9 and the surface surface was was slick. She exited southbound 9 at Croton Avenue and her 1 ~ The sur-reply affirmation of Robert W. Folchetti, Folchetti, Esq. has not not been been considered considered by this Court as counsel failed to The sur-reply affirmation of Robert this Court counsel failed to seek permission permission for leave to to file sur-reply pursuant pursuant to Court's part part rules. rules. for leave file a sur-reply to the the Court's [* 1] 1 of 6 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2020 09:54 AM INDEX NO. 69634/2016 1.1 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68 i1,I RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2020 Ii lifiso v. Brown, Brown, Index Index No. 69634/2016 69634/2016 lfiso ·,1 I,I 1• .i,ntention was was to park in the Metronorth Metronorth lot. The exit ramp has a downward ,i_ntention downward slope. As she ~raveled down down at a speed speed of began to lose traction. she of 10 to 15 mph, she began traction. Although Although she 1rav~led ~pplled her bra.kes brakes the continued to down the approaching a stop sign t~e vehicle vehicle co~tinued to skid down the ramp approaching ~pplle? ~t the 1nterse~t1on Intersection with Croton Point Avenue. observed plaintiffs plaintiffs truck rt Croton Point Avenue. She observed truck traveling traveling west west Croton Point POint Avenue. Avenue. Defendant Defendant attempted her wheel however, her ~n ~roton attempted to turn her wheel to the right, however, yehlcle continued to slide entered the intersection intersection causing yehIcle continued slide forward forward and entered causing a collision. collision. At At the lime that her vehicle vehicle was was moving o to 15 mph. lime of the accident, accident, Lisa Brown Brown states states that moving at 1 10 II Plaintiff attests attests that F250 Super Super Duty truck Plaintiff that he was was operating operating a 2012 2012 Ford F250 truck west west on q:roton Point Point Avenue signal or q;roton Avenue at the time time of the accident. accident. He was not facing facing any traffic traffic signal intersection with exit ramp. He observed observed the defendant's ~ign at the intersection with the the south south 9 exit defendant's vehicle vehicle Ji • • ~ovmg down the ramp. His truck truck was was traveling traveling about ~ovlng at a high rate of speed speed down about 12 to 15 \pph. Although Although he attempted attempted to steer steer away insufficient 7i1ph. away from defendant's defendant's vehicle, vehicle, there there was was insufficient time before defendant's defendant's vehicle vehicle entered entered the intersection intersection and the time before the accident accident occurred. occurred. II Liability Liability 1[ j ~. • iil Defendants summary judgment judgment dismissing dismissing the complaint complaint on the issue Defendants move move for summary issue of liability. Defendants Defendants argue argue that Brown was faced situation when emergency situation when her liability. that Brown faced with an emergency II vehicle failed snow and icy condition condition of the road. 1i8hicle failed to stop at the the stop sign due to the snow " ,I iift Plaintiff moves moves for partial partial summary summary judgment issues of liability liability arguing Plaintiff judgment on the issues arguing that that the defendant defendant was negligent negligent and that plaintiff neither neither caused caused nor contributed contributed to the that plaintiff 11 accident. " accident. II Serious Injury Injury Serious I[ Defendants also also move move for summary complaint on the : Defendants summary judgment judgment dismissing dismissing the the complaint grounds that plaintiff sustain a serious within the meaning grounds that plaintiff did not sustain serious injury injury within meaning of Insurance Insurance Law 11·· 5101(d). 5101(d). .• Defendants submit orthopedic expert report of Ronald L. L. Mann, Mann, M.D. Dr. Defendants submit an orthopedic expert IME report of Ronald rylann's year old plaintiff who developed developed radiculopathy t\(lann's report report provides provides a history history of the 57 year plaintiff who radlculopathy a:fter the accident. He initially had an epidural injection and conservative care which failed. failed. ifter accident. initially epidural injection conservative care which Rlaintiff work for the MTA accident and has since since retired. ~Iaintiff returned returned to work MTA after after the accident retired. l,['1[ iit Plaintiffs prior prior medical medical history history reveals reveals a motor motor vehicle accident in 1988 19~9 Plaintiffs vehicle accident 1988 or 1989 which he experienced experienced cervical resolved. He had mild neck pain pam from which cervical spine spine symptoms symptoms that that resolved. starting in July July 2013 2013 (prior (prior to this accident) chiropractor for month starting accident) for which which he went went to a chiropractor for a month ~nd did maintenance maintenance therapy Jnd therapy afterwards. afterwards. IJ.II After this accident, on on Se~tember Se~tember 15, 15, 2014, 2014, plai~tiff plaintiff underwent anterior ~ervical cervical After this acci_dent, _underw~n~ anterior djiscectomy and fusion. time of of the IME examInatIon, examination, plamtrff plamtlff complained complained of of di1scectomy fusion. At the time Jxperiencing neck neck pain if he was was driving driving too long. He indicated indicated that that his arm pain and Jixperiencing r~dicular pain had resolved. resolved. Examination Examination of the cervical spine spine revealed revealed anterior anterior scar scar ridicular the cervical Cipnsistent with the surgery. surgery. Plaintiff Plaintiff was was able able to forward degrees and extend extend 10 qbnsistent forward flex 20 degrees 1!II Ii 2 il [* 2] 1.1 2 of 6 FILED: IIWESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2020 09:54 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68 INDEX NO. 69634/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2020 Ii Brown, Index Index No. 69634/2016 69634/2016 Tiso v. Brown, II . ?egrees, normal being 45 degrees. degrees. Rotation Rotation for right and left was 45 degrees degrees with egrees, with normal degrees. ;normal . ormal being 80 degrees. ' _dh. Mann d~termined determined that that plaintiff plaintiff had a pre-existing pre-existing degenerative degenerative disease disease of his .. Dr. ~ann iII fervlcal spine spine which which was was aggravated aggravated after after this this accident. accident. No further further treatment treatment was frervIcal ~ecessary and the plaintiff plaintiff has no disability disability related related to this this accident accident and no permanency permanency ~ecessary related to the cervical cervical spine. spine. related ]III In ~pposition, opposition, plaintiff plaintiff argues argues that that defendants defendants failed failed to demonstrate demonstrate a prima prima face qase of judgment. In any event, of entitlement entitlement to summary summary judgment. event, plaintiff plaintiff argues argues that that issues issues of fact fact exist. Plaintiff submits submits an orthopedic orthopedic expert expert report report of James James DePuy, DePuy, M.D. who who examined examined Plaintiff by Dr. DePuy t!,e plaintiff ~re plaintiff on October October 17, 2019. Examination Examination of of the the cervical cervical spine spine DePuy revealed revealed I, . passive ranges ranges of of motion motion to the right and left of about about 50 degrees, degrees, with with normal normal being 80; Rassive flexion of 45 degrees, degrees, with normal normal being 45; extension extension of 45 degrees degrees with normal normal being ~texion bilateral side side turn of 25 to 30 degrees, degrees, with normal normal being being 45. X-rays X-rays taken taken at the 45; and bilateral II " Elxamination show the C4-5 fusion fusion with four-hole four-hole plate plate in a good good position. position. According According to ~xamination show [)r. DePuy, DePuy, plaintiff plaintiff is at maximum maximum medical medical improvement. improvement. He has a disability disability to his neck neck '4r. :Id rjelated ~rlated to his disk disk pathology pathology as related related to the accident accident cervical cervical spine spine surgery surgery and residual residual limitation of of motion. motion. ~ain and limitation iII lII Dr. DePuy DePuy opines, opines, with a reasonable reasonable degree degree of of medical medical ·certainty, certainty, that that the C4-5 herniated disc disc which which was was demonstrated demonstrated on the the March March 31, 2014 2014 MRI was was caused caused by the herniated ~ccident in question. question. Although Although plaintiff plaintiff had prior prior neck neck pain, that that pain was was non-radicular non-radicular as ~ccident documented chiropractic records. records. Dr. DePuy DePuy notes notes that that the pre-accident pre-accident X-ray X-ray of documented by the chiropractic ,r July 20, 2013, was was completely completely negative negative for any pathology pathology at C4-5. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs radicular radicular July complaints commenced commenced after after the accident accident in question question and were were confirmed confirmed by a positive positive ct>mplaints MRI documenting documenting the C4-5 herniation, herniation, and were were alleviated alleviated by the C4-5 C4-5 laminectomy, laminectomy, " fusion, instrumentation performed performed on September September 15, 2014. 2014. f~sion, and instrumentation II 1·I DePuy opines opines that that in addition addition to the herniation herniation which which was caused by the Dr. DePuy was caused accident, the mild pre-existing pre-existing cervical cervical strain strain and degenerative degenerative condition condition was was aggravated aggravated accident, b'y the accident. accident. Dr. DePuy DePuy opines opines that that plaintiff plaintiff sustained sustained the injuries injuries due to the accident accident ~y a'nd that that the injuries injuries were were significant significant and resulted resulted in losses losses of of use and significant significant a'nd limitations of of use of his cervical cervical spine. spine. The The limitations limitations were were significant significant or consequential consequential in limitations they were were moderate moderate in degree degree and continued continued through through his examination. examination. The The moderate moderate that they ranges of of motion motion had practical practical effects effects in that that they they limited limited the use of.all of all of his neck lilifnited h,ited ranges rhovement functions functions and his ability ability to use his neck neck for for any sustained sustained exertion. exertion. In addition, addition, rftovement surgical fusion fusion and instrumentation instrumentation of C4-5, the motion motion function function at the C4-5 d'ue to the surgical i~tervertebral joint been completely completely lost. i~tervertebral joint has been JI 1 II ~i~e~ According to to D~ Dr... DePu_y, DePuy, given the the limitations limitations and and t~tal total loss loss of of use use without without ~ccordi_ng_ resolution, plaintiffs plaintiffs cervical cerVical spme spine mJuries injuries are permanent. permanent. He will always always have have symptoms symptoms resolution, urpon exertion exertion and upon being being in the same same position position for for too too long. He will always always have have upon 11 :I [* 3] 11 !!I 3 of 6 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2020 09:54 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68 ; INDEX NO. 69634/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2020 ; i;Tiso v. Brown, 69634/2016 i:Tisov. Brown, Index Index No. 69634/2016 IIIt ,functional limitation limitation of his neck neck motion motion and complete complete loss of of use of of the motion motion between between .functional the C4-C5 vertebrae. C4-C5 vertebrae. II 'Discussion Discussion I[II ._The The proponent of a motion motion for summary summary judgment must make make a prima prima facie pro_ponent judgment must facie ~howlng of of entitlement entitlement to judgment matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence evidence to T~o~1ng judgment as a matter tendering sufficient rllmlnate any material material issues issues of fact from the case case (see (see Winegrad Winegrad v N. Y. Y. Univ. Med. Ctr., iriI1minate ~4. [1985]; Zuckerman Zuckerman v City City of of New New York, 49 NY2d NY2d 557, 562 [1980]): ~4 _NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; [1980]).Foallureto make such showing showing requires requires denial denial of the motion, motion, regardless regardless of of the sufficiency ;iailure to make sufficiency opposing papers papers (see (see Winegrad Winegrad v N. N. Y. Y. Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d NY2d at 853). ?f the opposing j "Once this showing showing has been made, '.1 "Once this made, however, however, the burden burden shifts shifts to the party party 9pposing judgment to produce 9Pposing the motion motion for summary summary judgment produce evidentiary evidentiary proof proof in admissible admissible ~~rm sufficient to establish the existence fact which which require require a trial of f~rm sufficient establish the existence of of material material issues issues of of fact the action" (Alvarez (Alvarez v Prospect Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; [1986]" see Zuckerman City ~~e action" Zuckerman v City " ' OfNew 49 conclusions, expressions of hope unsubstantiated of New York, NY2d at 562). Mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated ll . " allegations assertions insufficient to defeat defeat a prima facie facie showing of entitlement allegations or assertions are insufficient showing of entitlement to ~ummary judgment New York, York, 49 NY2d NY2d at 562). ~ummary judgment (see Zuckerman Zuckerman v New !}i( I. 1 /. Liability Liability II Plaintiff argues argues that that defendant defendant Lisa Brown Brown violated Law 1142(a) 1142(a) Plaintiff violated Vehicle Vehicle and Traffic Traffic Law matter of of law by failing failing to stop stop her vehicle vehicle at a stop sign. as a matter 'I, Defendants argue argue that that Lisa Brown Brown was was faced emergency situation iil Defendants faced with an emergency situation and therefore, is not liable liable as a matter matter of law. therefore, IIjj Plaintiff established established his prima prima facie facie entitlement entitlement to judgment matter of law on Plaintiff judgment as a matter the issue issue of liability liability by demonstrating demonstrating that defendant failed that defendant failed to stop stop her vehicle vehicle at the the stop i1ign and failed way to plaintiff plaintiff and that that such actions actions were proximate ilign failed to yield yield the right of way were a proximate of the accident accident (see (see Ashby Estate of of Encarnacion,_ Encamacion, _ AD3d 111 NYS3d NYS3d 6ause of Ashby v Estate AD3d _, _ , 111 894 [2d [2d Dept Dept December December 11, 2019]). 2019]). 894 II Defendants failed demonstrate entitlement entitlement to summary Defendants failed to demonstrate summary judgment judgment on the issue issue of liability liability and failed issue of fact Brown was confronted with an of failed to raise a triable triable issue fact that that Lisa Brown was confronted ~mergency situation. Since Lisa Brown Brown admitted admitted in her affidavit affidavit that Jmergency situation. Since that the ground ground was was c6vered aware of of the wet wet and snowy snowy road conditions, conditions, the dbvered with with snow snow and she was aware elmergency doctrine doctrine is not applicable Caristo v Sanzone, Sanzone, 96 NY2d NY2d 172 [2001] [2001] elmergency applicable (see Caristo [holding there was was no qualifying which justified justified issuance issuance of [bolding that, as a matter matter of of law, there qualifying event event which the emergency instruction. instruction. Given Given defendant's defendant's admitted admitted knowledge knowledge of the worsening worsening the emergency Jeather conditions, there was no reasonable view of the evidence that would lead to the W-eather conditions, there reasonable view of evidence that would &mclusion that slippery road conditions conditions were unforeseen); dbnclusion that the ice and slippery were sudden sudden and unforeseen]; Mughal 2013]). · Mughal v Rajput, Rajput, 106 AD3d AD 3d 886 [2d Dept Dept 2013]). !:J ,_ I ll'I iII However, "[e]vidence "[e)vidence of of ~kidd_ing ~kidding out out of of control control is on!y only ~rima prima facie_ facie evidence evidence of of However, ri'egligence on the part of of the dnver, driver, It does does not mandate mandate a finding finding of of negligence. negligence. Such ri'egligence the part II !i ii i [* 4] 4 4 of 6 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2020 09:54 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68 INDEX NO. 69634/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2020 liso v. Brown, Brown, Index Index No. 69634/2016 69634/2016 Tiso evidence, together explanation given given by the driver, driver, presents presents factual questions for evidence, together with the explanation factual questions determination jury" (King AD3d 205, 219 [2d Dept determination by the jury" (King v Car Car Rentals, Rentals, Inc., 29 AD3d Dept 2006] 2006] quoting Copeman Copeman v Moran, Moran, 236 AD2d 1997]). Here, Lisa Brown Brown quoting AD2d 507, 508 [2d Dept 1997J). testified down the exit exit ramp at a speed speed of of 1 10 to 15 mph began testified that that she traveled traveled down Oto mph when when she she began traction. Although Although she she applied ramp to lose traction. applied her brakes, brakes, she continued continued to skid down down the ramp as she she approached wheel to the right right to avoid avoid approached the intersection. intersection. She attempted attempted to turn her her wheel entering the intersection, however, her vehicle continued to slide forward and collided entering intersection, however, vehicle continued slide forward collided that in opposition facie with plaintiff's plaintiffs truck. truck. Thus, the Court Court finds that opposition to plaintiff's plaintiffs prima prima facie showing, issue of fact whether the skid was unavoidable. unavoidable. showing, defendants defendants raised an issue fact as to whether II. II. Serious Injury Injury Serious motion for summary summary judgment personal injury injury action action arising motor On a motion judgment in a personal arising from from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants defendants are required required to establish establish that that the plaintiff plaintiff did not sustain sustain vehicle accident, serious injury injury within meaning of Insurance Insurance Law 5102(d) 5102(d) (see (see Toure v Avis Rent A a serious within the meaning Avis Rent Car Sys., 98 NY2d NY2d 345 [2002]; [2002]; Gaddy Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]; [1992]; Licari Car Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 [1982]). [1982]). NY2d Defendants have have failed meet their burden of demonstrating demonstrating that Defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden that the plaintiff within the meaning 5102(d) as plaintiff did not sustain sustain a serious serious injury injury within meaning of Insurance Insurance Law§ Law ~ 5102(d) subject accident accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; [2002]; Avis Rent a result of the subject Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 955-956 955-956 [1992]). [1992]). The evidence demonstrates that Gaddy evidence demonstrates that defendants' experts experts found limitations in the range range of motion motion in the cervical defendants' found limitations cervical spine spine (see Mercado v Mendoza, Mendoza, 133 AD3d Dep't 2015]). Defendants' expert Mercado AD3d 833 [2d Dep't 2015]). Defendants' expert failed failed to adequately explain explain that that the restrictions restrictions in the range range of of motion motion were adequately were objectively objectively resolved resolved O'Connor, 97 AD3d Dep't 2012] 2012] c.f c.f Gonzales Gonzales v Fial/o, (see India v O'Connor, AD3d 796 [2d Dep't Fiallo, 47 AD3d AD3d 760 2008]). [2d Dept. 2008]). Since defendants defendants failed failed to meet meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary unnecessary to Since their prima facie burden, determine whether papers submitted submitted by the plaintiff plaintiff in opposition opposition were were sufficient sufficient to determine whether the papers issue of fact fact (see (see Mercado Mercado v Mendoza, 3d 833; Che Hong raise a triable triable issue Mendoza, 133 AD AD3d Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD 3d 969 [2d Dep't Dep't 2011]). event, plaintiff's plaintiffs expert Kossoff, AD3d 2011 ]}. In any event, expert raised a triable triable whether she sustained sustained a serious serious injury. issue issue of fact fact as to whether injury. 5 [* 5] 5 of 6 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2020 09:54 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68 INDEX NO. 69634/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2020 :,T;sov. Brown, Index Index No. 69634/2016 69634/2016 iTiso v. Brown, II II Accordingly, Accordingly, it is " I" II ORDERED judgment dismissing ORDERED that that the defendants' defendants' motion motion for summary summary judgment dismissing the complaint, complaint, pursuant pursuant to CPLR CPLR 3212, on the issue issue of of liability liability and on the the grounds grounds that that plaintiff plaintiff 'did sustain a serious serious injury injury within within the meaning meaning of Insurance Insurance Law 5102(d) 5102(d) is DENIED DENIED .~id not sustain (motion sequence sequence #1 #1);); and it is further further tmotion 'I IIj[ ORDERED that that the plaintiff's plaintiff's motion motion for for partial partial summary summary judgment (tinthe issue of of ORDERED judgment on the issue ., t liability liability is DENIED DENIED (motion (motion sequence sequence #2). IIjj parties are directed directed to appear appear in the Settlement Settlement Conference Conference Part, room 1600, The parties March 17, 2020, 2020, at at 9:15 9:15 a.m. a.m. for further further proceedings. proceedings. on March ·1I Dated: fated: I II White Plains, Plains, New New York York White January 30, 2020 January 11 II I II i Ii 11 I ,I I :i. i: ij i' " I H, ALPHABETICAL ALPHABETICAL MASTER MASTER LIST LIST - WESTCHESTER/Tiso WESTCHESTERfTiso Brown Hi v. Brown I 'i il 6 [* 6] 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.