Court Opinion

ID: 9958685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:09:00.348994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:37.890130
License: Public Domain

Moynihan v Srivastava
               2024 NY Slip Op 31146(U)
                      April 5, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 160842/2019
                 Judge: James G. Clynes
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. 160842/2019
 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74                                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:              HON. JAMES G. CLYNES                                                     PART                                22M
                                                                                            Justice
           -- --- ------- -------- --·-•••• ·---------------------------------- ----------·-· ·----X      INDEX NO.           160842/2019
            LYDIA MOYNIHAN,
                                                                                                          MOTION DATE          NIA, NIA
                                                       Plaintiff,
                                                                                                          MOTION SEQ. NO.        002 003
                                                   - V -

            ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA, JOHN DOE                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                                  MOTION
                                                       Defendant.

           --·------------------------------------------ ------------------- ------------- ----X

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
           35,36, 52,53,54,55,56,57,58,62,64,66,67,68,69, 70, 71, 72
           were read on this motion to/for                                                             JUDGMENT- SUMMARY

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 37, 3 8, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,
           45,46,47,50,51,60,61, 63,65
           were read on this motion to/for                                             SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER)

                     Upon the foregoing documents, the motion by Defendant ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA for
           summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiffs claimed injuries do not satisfy the serious injury
           threshold under Insurance Law 5102 (d) (Motion Sequence 2) and Plaintiff's motion for partial
           summary judgment on the issue of liability and striking the affirmative defense of comparative
           negligence (Motion Sequence 3) are decided as follows:
                      Plaintiff seeks recovery for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of an August 19, 2018
           accident between Plaintiff pedestrian and Defendant's vehicle.                                     Plaintiffs Bill of Particulars
           alleges injuries to soft tissue damages of bilateral posterolateral disc ostrophyte complex at C3-
           C4, right neural foraminal stenosis, right posterolateral disc osteophyte at C4-C5, superficial lateral
           ankle and hindfoot swelling, thoracic levocurvature, straightened cervical lordosis, disc space
           narrowing at C4-5, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, cognitive deficits, dizziness,
           photosensitivity, fatigue, memory deficits, headaches, hypersomnia, sprain/strain to the lumbar
           spine, cervical spine, bilateral knees, right ankle and right elbow.

            160842/2019 \IOY:\IHA:',;, LYDIA \'S. SRl\'ASTA VA, ,\BHISHEK                                                      Page I of -t
            Mution 'io. 002 003

[* 1]                                                                           1 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 160842/2019
 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

               I.      SERIOUS INJURY
                    The burden rests upon the movant to establish that the plaintiff has not sustained a serious
           injury (Love v. Bennetr, 122 AD2d 728[J51 Dept 1986]). When the movant has made such a
           showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce prima facie evidence to support the claim of
           serious injury (see Lopez v. Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017[1985]).
                    In support of his motion, Defendant relies on the affirmed independent examination reports
           of Dr. Richard D. Semble, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. Mark J. Decker, a board-
           certified radiologist.
                    Defendant relies on Dr. Decker's review of the Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI)
           examination which was performed on November 25, 2020. Dr. Decker noted diffuse loss of disc
           signal, C2-C3 through C5-C6 with broad bulge and luschka hypertrophy at C4-C5. He noted that
           these are longstanding and there was no traumatic injury casually related to the August 19, 2018
           accident.
                    Defendant also relies on Dr. Semble's report dated January 4, 2022 after an orthopedic
           medical evaluation.        Dr. Semble measured Plaintiffs range of motion using a hand-held
           goniometer. The cervical spine, thoracic spine and lumbar spine all had no muscle spasm and
           normal range of motion. He performed Jackson's, Scapular Winging, Fabere, Ely's, Kemp's, and
           Lasegue's sign tests which were all negative. He performed the Tinel's, and Apley's tests on the
           right elbow and they were negative with normal range of motion. He also performed Lachman's,
           Patella tracking. stable-Yams, McMurray on the right and left knee which were all negative. The
           range of motion was normal. He also found that the cervical spine sprain, thoracic spine sprain,
           lumbar spine sprain/strain, right elbow sprain/strain, bilateral knee sprain/strain and right ankle
           foot sprain/strain were all resolved. He found no evidence of orthopedic disability, permanency
           or residuals and also opined that the Plaintiff could perform her activities of daily living as she
           was prior to the accident and was capable of working without restrictions.
                    However, Defendant has nonetheless failed to meet his prima facie burden of showing that
           Plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning oflnsurance Law 5102 (d) as a result
           of the accident (Toure v Avis Rent a Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]). Defendant fails to submit
           competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that Plaintiff did not sustain a serious brain

            160842/2019 I\IOYNlllA:--1, LYl)IA vs. SIUVASTAVA, ABHISHEK                           Page 2 of 4
            Motio11 No. 002 003

[* 2]                                                            2 of 4
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 160842/2019
 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

           mJury as the Defendant's medical experts failed to address this alleged injury (Shumway v
           Bungeroth, 58 AD3d 431 [1st Dept 2009]; Hughes v Cai, 31 AD3d 3 85 [2d Dept 2006] [where the
           defendants failed to address the plaintiffs allegations that her decedent suffered traumatic brain
           injury, they failed to meet their initial prima facie burden]). Defendant's motion papers fail to
           adequately address Plaintiff's claim, clearly set forth in the Bill of Particulars, that she sustained a
           traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident.
                     Even if Defendant made a prima facie showing, a triable issue of fact was raised by
           Plaintiff's evidence, including Dr. Fallahpour's affirmation relating Plaintiff's injuries to the
           subject accident.
               II.        SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABIUTY
                     In support of Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability,
               Plaintiff relies primarily on her examination before trial testimony. Plaintiff testified that she
               was crossing 57 th Street from north to south on the west side of the intersection with 3rd Avenue
               in the crosswalk with a walk sign in her favor, she was near the middle of the street when she
               saw the vehicle about 10 seconds prior to the accident, to her left on 3rd Avenue turning onto
               57 th Street, stopped, the next time she saw the vehicle was about one second before the
               accident, when the grille portion of the vehicle struck Plaintiff in the front.
                     In opposition, Defendant contends that there is an issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff
               exercised due care for her own safety by failing to keep Defendant's vehicle within her
               observation prior to the accident and failing to take any evasive actions. However, Defendant
               submits only an attorney affirmation. Pursuant to a Court Order dated September 22, 2022,
               Defendant is ·"precluded from testifying at trial and from submitting their ovm affidavit in
               motion practice." New York courts have consistently held an attorney's affirmation to be
               inadequate to oppose a summary judgment motion (.r;ee GTF Marketing Inc. v Colonial
               Aluminum Sales, Inc., 66 NY2d 965. 968 [1985]). Without more, such as an affidavit or
               testimony from a person with first-hand knowledge, Defendant's opposition fails to raise an
               issue of fact sufficient to preclude a determination of summary judgment on the issue of
               liability in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant.

            160842/2019 ,1OY'-IHA:\, LYDIA \'S. SRl\'ASTA \'A. ARIIISIIEK                            Page 3 of 4
            ,101ion :\o. 002 003

                                                                   3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 160842/2019

 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                   Accordingly, it is
                   ORDERED that the motion by Defendant ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA for summary
           judgment on the grounds that Plaintiffs alleged injuries fail to satisfy the serious injury threshold
           under Insurance Law 5102(d) (Motion Sequence 2) is denied; and it is further
                   ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue ofliability (Motion
           Sequence 3) is granted; and it is further
                   ORDERED that any requested relief not specifically addressed herein has nonetheless
           been considered; and it is further
                   ORDERED that within 30 days of entry, Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Decision and
           Order upon Defendant with Notice of Entry.
                   This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                    4/5/2024
                      DATE

                                       ~
            CHECK ONE:                     CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                           GRAI\TED          □ DENIED    GR,\YfED I'-' PART        □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                   SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:          INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN    FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT     □ REFERENCE

            160842/2019 .\10Y.I\IHAN, L YDlA vs. SRIVASTAVA, ABHISIIEK                               Page 4 of4
            Motion .'\'o. 002 003

                                                                4 of 4
[* 4]