Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed an order granting defendants' motions for summary judgment in a personal injury action stemming from a motor vehicle accident. The court determined that the defendants satisfied their prima facie burden to demonstrate the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The appeal was denied because the plaintiff's expert failed to specify the range of motion measurement methodology or compare the findings to normal baselines, thereby failing to create a triable issue of fact.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) sufficient to survive summary judgment.
Holdings
- The court affirmed the summary‑judgment rulings, finding that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to her right knee under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Key quotations
“The defendants met their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to her right knee under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d).”
Factual background
Adriana Vazquez sued Michael D. Vazquez and others for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that she did not suffer a serious injury to her right knee under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The plaintiff's expert failed to identify a method for measuring range of motion or to compare findings to normal values.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Queens County granted separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's amended complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The plaintiff appealed.