Arciuolo v Fusca
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Arciuolo v Fusca 2021 NY Slip Op 33325(U) March 31, 2021 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Index No. 53249/2019 Judge: Sam D. Walker 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 04/08/2021 03:51 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 INDEX NO. 53249/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021 statutory the statutory To commence commence the right of right time appeals as of for appeals time for you are (CPLR 5513[a]), 5513(a)), you (CPLR copy advised serve a copy to serve advised to of this this order, order, with with notice notice of of entry, upon all all parties. parties. entry, upon of YORK SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW NEW YORK THE STATE SUPREME COURT COUNTY WESTCHES TER COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER J.S.C. WALKER, J.S.C. PRESENT: HON. HON. SAM SAM D. WALKER, PRESENT: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------x -----------------------------------------------------------------------------x ARCIUOLO, THOMAS THOMAS ARCIUOLO, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, -against-against- DECISION & ORDER ORDER DECISION Index No. 53249/2019 53249/2019 Index Motion Sequence Sequence 1 Motion AMEDEO FUSCA MARISSA LYNN FUSCA FUSCA and AMEDEO FUSCA MARISSA Defendants. Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------x The following following papers papers were were read on the motion motion (Sequence# (Sequence#1)1) for for an order, order, pursuant pursuant The granting York granting of New the State of the to CPLR CPLR 3212 3212 and Article 51 of Insurance Law Law of State of New York the Insurance of the Article 51 Fusca, Amedeo Fusca Lynn Marissa summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Marissa Fusca and Amedeo Fusca, defendants, the of favor summary judgment verified complaint: the verified dismissing the complaint: dismissing ibits A-H ation in Support/Exh Notice of of Motion/Affirm Motion/Affirmation Support/Exhibits Notice A-F xhibits A-F Affirmation Opposition/Exhibits Affirmation in Opposition/E Affirmation Reply Affirmation Reply Factual and Procedural Procedural Background Background Factual 2019, action on February this action The plaintiff, Thomas February 27, 2019, commenced this Arciuolo, commenced Thomas Arciuolo, The plaintiff, accident vehicle accident that seeking damages damages for alleged alleged serious serious injuries injuries sustained sustained in a motor motor vehicle that seeking Longview Avenue Maple of intersection occurred on December 6, 2016, at or near the intersection of Maple Avenue and Longview the near 2016, December occurred Avenue the County County of Westchester Westchester, , State State of New New York. The The parties parties completed completed discovery discovery Avenue in the of issue. and the plaintiff filed note of issue. the note filed the the plaintiff following injuries, the following The plaintiff's bill of particulars alleges alleges that sustained the injuries, all of of that he sustained of particulars The plaintiff's with shoulder of left derangemen t of internal derangement which claimed to be permanent: permanent: significant left shoulder significant internal which are claimed injuries which tear, labial and SLAP tear, adhesive synovitis, impingement syndrome labial tear, which injuries syndrome t impingemen SLAP tear, adhesive synovitis, that particulars of bill his in alleges required surgery November 14, 2018. plaintiff alleges of particulars that The plaintiff 2018. The surgery on November required following the accident, weeks following confined to his bed for approximatelyly three three weeks accident, and to for approximate was confined he was alleges plaintiff The accident. his home home for approximately two weeks following the accident. The plaintiff alleges that, as the following weeks for approximately football, a result of the accident, accident, he can no longer longer play volleyball volleyball or throw throw football, he had to a result that, if he has purchase a snowblower because shoveling difficult and is concerned concerned that, shoveling is difficult snowblower because purchase not He up. grow children, he will not be able to with them they grow did not file a no-fault no-fault they as them with play able children, this accident. claim with his insurance insurance carrier carrier due due to this accident. claim [* 1] 1 of 6 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 03:51 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 INDEX NO. 53249/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021 ._ ._Th~ Th~ defendants, defendants, by their their attorney, attorney, now now file the instant instant motion, motion, arguing arguing that that the pla~nt1ff failed to meet the threshold as required per Insurance Law § 5102(d) pla~ntlff failed meet threshold required Insurance S 5102(d) and the action of Insurance action cannot cannot be maintained maintained according according to the provisions provisions of Insurance Law § S 5104. 5104. The defendants defendants assert assert that that the plaintiff plaintiff was was involved involved in a prior prior lawsuit lawsuit arising arising out out of a workworkrelated related injury injury that that occurred occurred on July July 31, 2015, 2015, and he appeared appeared at a deposition deposition for for that that lawsuit April 24, 2017, lawsuit on April 2017, five months months after after the subject subject accident accident in this this case, case, and testified testified that which that he had not been been involved involved in any any incidents incidents or accidents accidents since since July July 31, 2015, 2015, in which he suffered that deposition deposition for suffered an injury. injury. He also also complained complained of the same same problems problems in that for those those work-related work-related injuries, injuries, as for for this this accident. accident. The The defendants defendants further further assert assert that that the plaintiff's particulars in that plaintiff's bill of particulars that case, alleges alleges the same same left shoulder shoulder injuries injuries as he alleges alleges as a result alleged injuries result of of his alleged injuries from from motor motor vehicle vehicle accident accident in this this case. case. The contend that The defendants defendants contend that the plaintiff's plaintiff's medical medical records records indicate indicate that that he underwent underwent surgery surgery for for a left shoulder shoulder tear tear on February February 3, 2016, 2016, ten months months before before the subject who diagnosed subject accident. accident. He treated treated with Dr. Cushner, Cushner, who diagnosed the plaintiff plaintiff with impingement which is the same impingement syndrome syndrome of the left shoulder, shoulder, which same injury injury he is now now alleging alleging as a result the accident July 31, result of the accident in this this case. case. The The doctor doctor noted noted the date date of the injury injury as July 2015, work-related injury. 2015, the date date of the plaintiff's plaintiff's work-related The The plaintiff, plaintiff, by his attorney, attorney, opposes opposes the motion motion arguing arguing that that prior prior to his accident accident on December 2016, Arciuolo Arciuolo had last treated with Dr. Cushner 27, 2016, at December 6, 6,2016, treated with Cushner on October October 27,2016, which time which time he reported reported a recent recent aggravation aggravation of his prior prior left left shoulder shoulder pain while while lifting. lifting. The The attorney then attorney argues argues that, following following the plaintiff's plaintiff's car accident accident on December December 6, 2016, 2016, he then resumed with Dr. Cushner resumed treatment treatment with Cushner from from January January 12, 2017, 2017, with with continued continued worsening worsening complaints with regard complaints with regard to his left shoulder shoulder and eventually eventually having having to undergo undergo surgery. surgery. The attorney The attorney asserts asserts that that the evidence evidence submitted submitted is sufficient sufficient to meet meet the threshold threshold requirements requirements and that that the plaintiff plaintiff has established established that that he sustained sustained an exacerbation exacerbation of and aggravation aggravation of the pre-existing pre-existing injuries injuries and the plaintiff plaintiff has raised raised a triable triable issue issue offact offact as to whether whether he sustained sustained a serious serious injury injury to his left shoulder shoulder and cervical cervical spine spine under under the permanent permanent consequential consequential limitation limitation and/or and/or significant significant limitation limitation of use use categories categories of Insurance 5102(d) .. Insurance Law§ Law S 5102(d) .. defendants' attorney attorney argues argues that that the plaintiff's plaintiff's opposition opposition papers In reply, the defendants' papers fail to address his deposition deposition testimony testimony from from his prior prior incident incident of July July 31, 2015, 2015, in which which he address testified that he had not been involved in any accidents or incidents since July 31, 2015. testified that been involved any accidents incidents since July 2015. The deposition deposition was approximately five months months after after the accident accident in this this case. Therefore, The was approximately case. Therefore, by the plaintiff's plaintiff's own admission, admission, he was was not injured injured in this this motor motor vehicle vehicle accident. accident. opposition, the plaintiff plaintiff cites cites Dr. Cushner's Cushner's report report to show show that that he had In the opposition, underlying shoulder shoulder pain pain and a condition, condition, which which was was exacerbated exacerbated by the subject subject motor motor underlying vehicle accident, accident, but it was was unclear unclear whether whether this this caused caused a complete complete new new tearing tearing or injured injured vehicle already injured injured portion portion of his body. Therefore, Therefore, the plaintiff's plaintiff's own physician physician confirmed confirmed an already that the plaintiff plaintiff had an underlying underlying shoulder shoulder condition condition and that that it was was questionable questionable whether whether that 2 [* 2] 2 of 6 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 03:51 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 INDEX NO. 53249/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021 the subject condition worse. worse. The The defendants' defendants' attorney attorney argues argues that that there there subject accident accident made made the condition that the plaintiff sustained any significant injury to his left is no evidence in the record evidence record that the plaintiff sustained significant injury of the the subject subject motor vehicle accident, accident, that that would would satisfy satisfy the shoulder shoulder as a result result of motor vehicle there evidence evidence that that the plaintiff sustained a requirements requirements of the Insurance Insurance Law. Nor is there plaintiff sustained out of the first first 180 medically determined non-permanent that restricted from 90 out med ically determined non-permanent injury injury that restricted him from days days following following the accident. accident. Discussion Discussion A party seeking summary summary judgment judgment bears the initial affirmatively party seeking bears the initial burden burden of affirmatively demonstrating summary judgment judgment as a matter New demonstrating its entitlement entitlement to summary matter of law. (Winegrad (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Alvarez v Prospect Prospect Hospital, Hospital, 68 NY2d 320 [1985]; Alvarez facie showing showing is made, the burden then shifts shifts to the [1986]). [1986]). If a sufficient sufficient prima prima facie made, the burden then forward with evidence evidence to demonstrate demonstrate the the existence existence of of a non-moving non-moving party party to come come forward trial. (CPLR (CPLR 3212[b]); 3212[b]); see also, Vermette Kenworth material material issue issue of fact fact requiring requiring a trial. Vermette v Kenworth Truck Company, 714, 717 [1986]). The parties' competing contentions contentions are viewed viewed Company, 68 NY2d NY2d 714,717 [1986]). The parties' competing light most most favorable favorable to the party party opposing (Marine Midland in the light opposing the motion. motion. (Marine Midland Bank, N.A. Artie's Automatic Automatic Transmission AD2d 610 610 [2d Dept v Dino Dino & Artie's Transmission Co., 168 AD2d Dept 1990]). 1990]). §5104(a) provides Insurance Insurance Law S5104(a) provides in pertinent pertinent part that: Notwithstanding other law, in any action action by or on Notwithstanding any other against another another covered covered person for behalf behalf of a covered covered person person against person for personal arising out out of negligence personal injuries injuries arising negligence in the use of operation vehicle in this this state, state, there there shall shall be no right operation of a motor motor vehicle case of of a to recovery for non-economic except in the case recovery for non-economic loss, except serious for basic economic loss .... (NY Insurance serious injury, or for basic economic 10ss....(NY Insurance Law §5104[a]) s5104[a]) defines "serious "serious injury" Insurance Insurance Law §5102(d) S5102(d) defines injury" as death; dismemberment; dismemberment; a personal which results personal injury injury which results in death; fetus; permanent significant disfigurement; a fracture; fracture; loss of a fetus; significant disfigurement; permanent organ, member, function or system; system; loss of use of a body body organ, member, function organ or permanent consequential limitation permanent consequential limitation of use of a body body organ member; significant limitation of use of a body body function function or member; significant limitation system; or a medically medically determined injury or impairment impairment of determined injury of a system; non-permanent nature nature which prevents the injured person from non-permanent which prevents injured person from performing substantially material acts acts which which performing substantially all of the material constitute such person's person's usual usual and customary constitute customary daily daily activities activities for not not less than than ninety ninety days days during during the the one one hundred hundred eighty eighty for days immediately immediately following following the the occurrence occurrence of of the the injury injury or days impairment. {NY (NY Insurance Insurance Law §5102[d]) S5102[d]) impairment. 3 [* 3] 3 of 6 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 03:51 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 INDEX NO. 53249/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021 "The "The determination determination of of whether whether [a] plaintiff plaintiff sustained sustained a serious serious injury injury within within the the meaning of the the statute statute is, as a rule, a question question for for the the jury." jury." (31 N.Y.Prac., N.Y.Prac., New New York York meaning Insurance Avis Rent Insurance Law§ Law S 32:32 32:32 [2015-2016 [2015-2016 ed.]; see see also, Toure v Avis Rent A Car Car Systems, Systems, Inc., 98 NY2d NY2d 345 [2002]). [2002]). "[O]n "[O]n a motion motion for for summary summary judgment judgment the the defendant defendant has the the burden burden show that that the the plaintiff plaintiff has not not sustained sustained a serious serious injury injury as a matter matter of of law" (/d.). (ld.). to show The degree degree or seriousness seriousness of of an injury injury may may be shown shown in one one of of two two ways: ways: either either by The an expert's expert's designation designation of of a numeric numeric percentage percentage of of a plaintiff's plaintiff's loss of of range range of of motion motion or by an expert's expert's qualitative qualitative assessment assessment of of a plaintiff's plaintiff's condition condition provided provided that that the the evaluation evaluation objective basis basis and compares compares the the plaintiff's plaintiff's limitations limitations to the the normal normal function, function, has an objective purpose purpose and use use of of the the affected affected body body organ, organ, member, member, function function or system system (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Car Sys., 98 NY2d NY2d 345, 357 [2002]). [2002]). A defendant defendant can establish establish that that a Avis Rent plaintiff's plaintiff's injuries injuries are not serious serious within within the the meaning meaning of of New New York York State State Insurance Insurance Law§ Law S 5102(d), 5102(d), by the the submission submission of of an affirmed affirmed medical medical report report from from a medical medical expert expert who who has examined the the plaintiff plaintiff and has determined determined that that there there are no objective objective medical medical findings findings to examined support the the plaintiff's plaintiff's alleged alleged claim claim (see Rodriguez Rodriguez v Huerfano, Huerfano, 46 AD3d AD3d 794 794 [2d Dept Dept support 2007]). 2007]). this case, case, the the plaintiff plaintiff did not suffer suffer death, death, dismemberment, dismemberment, significant In this significant disfigurement, fracture fracture or loss of of a fetus. fetus. Therefore, Therefore, those those categories categories of of the the Insurance Insurance Law disfigurement, § S 5102(d) 51 02(d) can be eliminated. eliminated. Therefore, Therefore, the plaintiff plaintiff would would be claiming claiming a permanent permanent loss of use of of a body body organ, organ, member, member, function function or system; system; a permanent permanent consequential consequential limitation limitation of use of of a body body organ organ or member; member; significant significant limitation limitation of of use of of a body body function function or system system medically determined determined injury injury or impairment impairment of of a non-permanent non-permanent nature nature which which prevented prevented or a medically from performing performing substantially substantially all of of the the material material acts acts which which constitute constitute his usual usual and him from customary daily daily activities activities for for not less than than ninety ninety days days during during the the one one hundred hundred eighty eighty days days customary immediately following following the the occurrence occurrence of of the the injury injury or impairment. impairment. The The defendants defendants argue argue immediately that the plaintiff plaintiff had pre-existing pre-existing injuries injuries not causally causally related related to the the incident. incident. that In support support of the the motion, motion, the the defendants defendants submit submit the the report report of of Richard Richard N. Weinstein, Weinstein, board certified certified orthopedic orthopedic surgeon, surgeon, license license to practice practice in New New York, York, who who performed performed M.D., a board independent medical medical examination examination on the the plaintiff plaintiff on June June 24, 2020 2020 .. .. Dr. Weinstein Weinstein an independent notes in his report report that that the the plaintiff plaintiff denies denies any any previous previous problems problems in relation relation to the the areas areas notes injured in this this accident accident and reported reported that that prior prior to the the accident, accident, he bilateral bilateral shoulder shoulder surgery, surgery, injured but no previous previous neck neck or back back problems. problems. He states states that that past past negative negative history history is negative. negative. Dr. Weinstein Weinstein states states that that the the plaintiff plaintiff reported reported that that he had surgery surgery from from the the subject subject accident accident for for his left proximal proximal biceps biceps repair repair on November November 14, 2018. 2018. Weinstein reports reports limited limited range range of of motion motion in the the plaintiff's plaintiff's left left shoulder shoulder with slight slight Dr. Weinstein impingement and diffuse diffuse tenderness tenderness and pain in the superior superior aspect aspect of of the left shoulder. impingement left shoulder. Dr. Weinstein Weinstein states states that that the plaintiff plaintiff has an extensive extensive past past medical medical history history that that includes includes prior work work related related accident accident that that occurred occurred on July July 31, 2015, off of a ladder. ladder. a prior 2015, when when he fell off underwent prior prior bilateral bilateral shoulder surgery and his treatment continued through through the He underwent shoulder surgery treatment continued 4 [* 4] 4 of 6 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 03:51 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 INDEX NO. 53249/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021 subject subject accident. accident. The The doctor doctor states states that that the majority majority of the the medical medical records records from from his providers providers note note July July 31, 2015 2015 as the the date date of of injury. injury. Weinstein opines opines that that there there is no documentation documentation to support support that that the the plaintiff plaintiff Dr. Weinstein sustained an acute acute traumatic traumatic injury injury to his neck, lower lower back back or left left shoulder. shoulder. He states states that that sustained post accident accident MRI of of the the left shoulder shoulder revealed revealed preexisting preexisting chronic chronic changes. changes. He opines opines the post that the November November 14, 2018 2018 left shoulder shoulder surgery, surgery, was was not related related to the the accident accident of of that December December 6, 2016, 2016, and and further further opines opines that that any any ongoing ongoing symptomology symptomology or residuals residuals is unrelated unrelated to the the accident accident of of 12/06/2016 12/06/2016 The defendants defendants also also submit submit the the report report of Jessica Jessica F. Berkowitz, Berkowitz, M.D., a board board The certified radiologist, radiologist, who who states states that that she reviewed reviewed the the radiological radiological examination examination performed performed certified the plaintiff plaintiff on November November 19, 2015, 2015, prior prior to the the subject subject accident, accident, and after after the the subject subject on the accident and found found no causal causal relationship relationship between between the the findings findings of of the the post post accident accident MRI accident of of the the left left shoulder shoulder and the the subject subject accident. accident. She She opines opines that that areas areas of of signal signal abnormality abnormality in the the distal distal rotator rotator cuff cuff are related related to chronic chronic repetitive repetitive microtrauma microtrauma to the the rotator rotator cuff cuff and the wear wear and tear tear on the the rotator rotator cuff cuff leads leads to rotator rotator cuff cuff degeneration, degeneration, tendinopathy tendinopathy and the tearing. She She opines opines that that there there is no evidence evidence of of acute acute traumatic traumatic injury injury to the the shoulder shoulder such such tearing. junction tear. as fracture, fracture, truamatic truamatic bone bone marrow marrow edema edema or musculotendinous musculotendinous junction tear. Upon Upon review review and viewing viewing the the facts facts in the the light light most most favorable favorable to the the plaintiff, plaintiff, this Court Court finds finds that that the the defendants defendants have have failed failed to make make a prima prima facie facie showing showing of of entitlement entitlement matter of of law with respect respect to the the plaintiff plaintiff suffering suffering a permanent permanent loss of of use to judgment judgment as a matter of a body body organ, organ, member, member, function function or system; system; permanent permanent consequential consequential limitation limitation of of use of a body body organ organ or member; member; and significant significant limitation limitation of of use of of a body body function function or system. system. Weinstein's own own examination, examination, using using a goniometer, goniometer, revealed revealed significant significant Dr. Weinstein's decreased decreased range range of of motion motion in the plaintiff's plaintiff's left shoulder. shoulder. The The doctor doctor simply simply states states in a conclusory conclusory manner manner that that the the post post accident accident MRI of of the the left shoulder shoulder revealed revealed preexisting preexisting chronic changes changes and in his opinion opinion the the left shoulder shoulder surgery surgery was was not not related related to the the accident accident chronic of 2016. Dr. Weinstein of December December 6, 6,2016. Weinstein states states that that any any ongoing ongoing symptomology symptomology or residuals residuals unrelated to the the subject subject accident accident and no objective objective evidence evidence of of any any disability, disability, impairment impairment is unrelated or permanency permanency as it relates relates to the the December December 6, 2016, 2016, but but provides provides no basis basis for for his opinion opinion simply states states it in a conclusory conclusory manner. manner. and simply Further, Further, the the defendants' defendants' attorney attorney argues argues throughout throughout that that the the plaintiff plaintiff previously previously injured injured his shoulder shoulder and that that he testified testified that that there there was was no other other injury injury after after his workworkrelated related injury. injury. However, However, such such testimony testimony goes goes to the the plaintiff's plaintiff's credibility, credibility, which which is an issue issue decided by the the trier trier of of fact fact and is not a question question of of law. Additionally, Additionally, the the plaintiffs plaintiff's bill to be decided of particulars particulars states states that that his injuries injuries were were superimposed superimposed and/or and/or aggravated aggravated prior prior underlying underlying conditions of of his left left shoulder. shoulder. Therefore, Therefore, the the plaintiff plaintiff has has claiming claiming an exacerbation exacerbation or conditions aggravation aggravation of of his prior prior injury, injury, which which is allowed. allowed. Since, Since, the the defendant defendant has failed failed to make make a prima prima facie facie showing, showing, the the Court Court need need not address address the the adequacy adequacy of of the the plaintiffs plaintiff's opposition. opposition. 5 5 [* 5] 5 of 6 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 03:51 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 INDEX NO. 53249/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021 the plaintiff, However, with regard to any any claims claims of alleged injuries injuries that prevented the plaintiff, that prevented of alleged with regard However, from performing substantially material acts usual and constituted his usual which constituted acts which the material of the substantially all of from performing days eighty days one hundred the one during the days during customary not less less than ninety days hundred eighty than ninety for not activities for daily activities customary daily denied. is immediately following alleged injury, such denied. such injury, alleged his following immediately sustain impairment impairment of of a non-permanent non-permanent nature nature which which prevented prevented him from from To sustain customary and usual performing substantially material which constitute usual customary his constitute which acts material the of all performing substantially daily activities activities for than ninety ninety days days during during the the one one hundred hundred eighty eighty days days for not less than daily immediately following occurrence of the injury injury or impairment, impairment, a plaintiff plaintiff must must present present the occurrence following the immediately objective evidence evidence of "a medically medically determine,d determine,d injury injury or impairment impairment of of a non-permanent non-permanent objective nature" (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Car Systems, Systems, Inc., 98 NY2d NY2d 345, 357 [2002]). [2002]). Avis Rent nature" the burden activities is insufficient Curtailment of recreational and household household activities insufficient to meet meet the burden of recreational Curtailment medical any offer any medical (Omar v Goodman, Goodman, 295 Dept 2002]). plaintiff did not offer The plaintiff 2002]). The 413 [2d Dept AD2d 413 295 AD2d (Omar evidence to support support a claim claim that that he was was unable unable to perform perform substantially substantially all of his usual usual and evidence customary activities activities under under this this category category and his bill of of particulars particulars states states that that he was was customary was confined confined to his bed for for approximately approximately three three weeks following the the accident accident and was confined weeks following confined home for approximately two accident. Therefore, Therefore, there there is no the accident. following the weeks following two weeks for approximately to his home this category. evidence to show show that that Rodriguez Rodriguez sustained sustained an injury injury in this category. evidence Accordingly, based on the foregoing, hereby; foregoing, it is hereby; Accordingly, based granted in denied in part judgment is denied ORDERED motion for part and granted summary judgment for summary the motion that the ORDERED that part. The parties parties are directed directed to appear appear before before the Settlement Settlement Conference Conference Part on a date date The determined. The The foregoing constitutes the Opinion, Opinion, Decision Decision and Order Order of the the Court. Court. foregoing constitutes to be determined. York Dated: White Plains, New New York White Plains, Dated: March 31, 2021 March \\ 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.
