Lazarus v. Perez

Summary

The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to renew an order granting defendants summary judgment. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present new facts warranting renewal and, in any event, failed to submit contemporaneous objective medical evidence establishing a serious injury under New York’s no-fault Insurance Law, including the 90/180-day category.

Holdings

1. A motion to renew was properly denied because plaintiffs did not present new facts not offered on the prior motion that might have led to a different result.
2. Contemporaneous, objective medical proof of injury, including a quantitative assessment of loss of range of motion or the extent of physical limitation, is necessary to satisfy the statutory serious-injury threshold; plaintiff's medical submissions did not satisfy that requirement.
3. Plaintiff failed to establish a 90/180-day serious injury because she submitted no medical evidence showing that she was unable to perform substantially all of the material acts constituting her usual and customary daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days after the accident.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs established grounds for renewal under CPLR 2221(e) by presenting new facts not offered on the prior motion that might have changed the result.
2. Whether plaintiff submitted objective medical evidence sufficient to satisfy New York's serious-injury threshold.
3. Whether plaintiff established a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Disposition

affirmed