Anderson v. Baker

2025 NY Slip Op 01147 · Appellate Division, Third Department · February 27, 2025 · No. CV-24-0044

Summary

This New York Appellate Division decision reviews a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion for summary judgment in a motor vehicle negligence action alleging a "serious injury" under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The court held that the defendant failed to meet her initial burden regarding the 90/180-day and significant disfigurement categories due to conflicting medical evidence and deposition testimony showing prolonged pain and temporary deformity. However, the court granted summary judgment on the permanent consequential limitation and significant limitation of use categories, finding the plaintiff lacked objective medical proof to support those claims. The order is modified accordingly.

Court
Appellate Division, Third Department
Writing for the Court
Garry, P.J.; Egan Jr.; Aarons; Pritzker; Lynch, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
February 27, 2025
Docket number
CV-24-0044
Procedural posture
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ulster County, denying defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Lynnis Baker v. Kathryn L. Anderson et al.
Disposition
reversed

Topics

summary judgmentinsurancenegligencecivil procedure

Practice areas

tortsinsurancecivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the defendant met its initial burden of showing that Anderson did not sustain a serious injury within the 90/180‑day category.
  2. Whether the defendant met its burden to show that Anderson did not sustain a permanent consequential limitation or a significant limitation of use.
  3. Whether the defendant met its burden to show that Anderson did not sustain a significant disfigurement.

Holdings

  1. Summary judgment was denied; the defendant did not satisfy its burden for the 90/180‑day category.
  2. Summary judgment was granted for the permanent consequential limitation and significant limitation of use categories.
  3. Summary judgment was denied; genuine issues of fact remain as to whether Anderson’s post‑accident appearance constitutes a significant disfigurement.

Key quotations

Feldman's report, based upon an examination of Anderson conducted 16 months after the accident, did not offer any opinion as to Anderson's "condition or limitations within the first 180 days following the accident, which is necessary to foreclose the 90/180‑day category".
Anderson's medical records actually confirm that she had abdominal and pelvic pain and had sustained a "large abdominal hematoma" when she was examined at the hospital immediately following the accident.

Factual background

On December 1, 2021, Anderson was driving her 2019 Honda CR‑V when Baker, traveling north on State Route 208, ran a red light and collided with Anderson's vehicle. Anderson suffered an abdominal hematoma and associated pain, which persisted for more than 90 days, and later claimed permanent consequential limitation, significant limitation of use, and significant disfigurement.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The defendant appealed, arguing that Anderson had not sustained a serious injury within the statutory categories.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…