Davlatova v Silber

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Davlatova v Silber 2020 NY Slip Op 35429(U) December 10, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 524316/2017 Judge: Reginald A. Boddie 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. INDEX NO. 524316/2017 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020 Cc 5 •. ' " t __,L,;I,•_ I,. ,., -. .. r1 -i rial Tern. Part 95 ofthe Supreme o - ~w York, held in and for • at tlt Courthouse. located et, Borough of Brooklyn City ork, on the 10th da · of PRES ENT: J • Honorable Reginald A. Boddi GA VHAR DA LATO A, lnde al. P aintiff, o. 524316/2017 0. m 2 -against- 0-0RDER D H. JP Hl I ~ JO .EPH llBER and JO ' D (i nd· nls. rder on d-fend nt • motion for pon th foregoing cit d papers h urnmary judgment pursuant t PLR 12 i Plaintiff oomm need thi . action motor vehide aocid nt on Jul a1leg dly sustain d injuri re ov· for p r: nal "njurie al]egedl 10 2017 n hiH oad in Brookl n. e'\\' York. Plaintiff to h r erv ' I an · ]umb r spin • left shoulder and left knee. On ovembe 16, 2017 Dr. Pau~ k rm n p rfl rm d rthro op' judgment seeking dismi al ofth 'er}' on p]aintiffs eft knee. I Lip hitz Li hitz), mo ed for summary nd J Defendants Joseph · i]b r ( ilb r u omplaint in :i ntirety. D fi ndant .ar ued pJainfffwas sole]y t' ·fy the s riou. injury threshold, put uant to liable for causi n the a _cid nt and fail d Insurance Law§§ 5]02 and 5104. Defendant Silber was op ratin a gt mini-van with tie p~rmissi.on of its owner defendant Lipshitz.. Silber ie tified h: wa lea, ing into his parked vehicle through the open driver's [* 1] 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 524316/2017 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020 idedoorwt. npiamntiff e-hicl~ he sudd nJ ,p end1 ,r. Pla·n1.iffte tifi _dthat h·cle tru.ckhi oor ,_ u in contact betli een lh edge of his door pe r door o her ehi, 1, . Pla ·nti IT te tifi next to the car. · s d i ber s she did not memb r tified she did not see H r pen h.is door, sound h .:r J rn ing · "lbe:r r swerve prior to contact. Defend -nt . p f ered the report of ph n onducted rRJ film re i~ of p in ifr left knee lumbar pin and l ft shoo.Id r. He con ]ud d here were no ·mdm_g Ji tai-d t th lefl shoulder or left kn whi h were causan relat d th Jul 10. 20W7 t accident. As lo th lumber spine MRI Dr. La ·Hg n t d the examination w ' f ve·ry poor quality patient motion and ·agiua] Tl -weighted· nd ax'al _ ]-weighted image ' wc-r due to motion rtifi t. H cone uded th cvidcn rn f di c d gencrati.on w 017 a id nl, bu the traightening o mh lumbe e rela ed to mu I Defendan1' p m or to how th ry limited due to n r I ted to the Ju y pine as a non- pe _ific finding whi h ma ati nt as po i ioned mn the . Rll uni . I o proffered the report •d\: ard oriel o, MD, · n rthopedis:t who conducted a phy i ,I c amination of plaintiff · n . . ptemher 25 ~2019. He con• lud d cervical and lumbar strain · 111d fl houlder and left kn further concluded or disability claimant and normal dail l,i ing \\r bf ti ities 'Without re tri ti n, an did not require furth e opined ba d n hi r i w of the left kn1a MRI and operati photo return to ork orthopedic care. that p,lain.tiff did not sustain .an injury t h r lefl knee on July 10t 2017 that would have requi d ur,ical inte ention. In pp "if treating orthopedi 0 tober l '9 [* 2] ,n. plaintiff proffered th affirmation and report of Paul k _rman. MD her u geon who examined pl in ifr :1,ft kn~ Jefl should r and lower back on 020. Dr. -ckerman no ed limit d 2 of 4 parts. H . opined INDEX NO. 524316/2017 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020 that plaintiff' injuri 'ii _re permanent in nalur . al - · dy in the chronic :ta , . wiU wor eP, and the amount of pa·n _nd di _omfort will increas . H i d plaintiff to und r · o pain management consultation. H further op·m:d tihat resum·ng p 1therapy may be of m b n fit to plaintiff. n Surnn ary ·,udgm -nt is a drastic rem d i t nc ot a triable is'ue (.5" e Zu ·kerman v City oflv'ew York 4 doubt as to tbc 562 p 980]). hou d not he granted wh re th r is any p ,rty moving or summary ju gm nt must mak,e a prima ti · entitlement as a. m et r f ia . ufficient to but onoe a prim fa i ti te th bu11 n hift o th howing has b n mad fact ,vhich rcquir tri 1of the action (Winegradv, e [1985]" Zuc:kennan ummary judgm ,e stablishi~ that · I i ue: of fa th absen e of an t,, art , pp Jng th identiary proof in admis i l · orm sufficient to establi h m t rial issues of motion to pwdu ni . York Univ. Med. tr., Y2d 851,853 • rious injury threshold" m ti n for 2d at 562). further. in 9 1h re defendant must. mniti II pl intiff did not suffer a ·': to the accident s e Jn urance Law 5102 [dl 2011 t see Wine Krad, 64 As to ) ' Y2d 557, us i.njury • and the in'uri , II are not c usally r,elaited Ghee, 87 Ad3d 10 1 [2d Dept Y2d at 851 ). Tty in th· s case, plaintiff and d the aocident hap n d. ··Th function of a n an.t . il ber alleged di f nm v rstons of ho un n m lion fo:r wmnary judgm nt · not to redibili., but merely o d · rmin issue e . -c (l 14 Woodbury Realty, LLC v JOB thpa her such Rd., LLC 178 AD d 7 7 759 [2d Dept 2019] [citations omittedj). Therefore, questio l ' of fact preclude summary jud m nt on the issue of hability, Dr. medical examination o plaintiff i [* 3] -r: .ri uffici II report of his eptembe nt t 3 of 4 Ii h - f4 ndan • prim • 2019 independent · . Howe er INDEX NO. 524316/2017 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 illl I I RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020 ,i., in oppiri(cm :r. Acbrman 1 s r, port of his O b r 19, 2020 xamination of plainfffraised triab]e issues f fact Accordingly. defendants ~m don for swnm. -y judgment· d nied in ntiret.,. ,, N .. E R: <.fl [* 4] 4 of 4

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.