Court Opinion

ID: 9875854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:43:21.143023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:05.918923
License: Public Domain

Aarons, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). We agree with the majority that Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. With respect to defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, we further agree with the majority that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether his alleged neck, back and shoulder injuries constituted a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In our view, however, plaintiff’s proof was not sufficient to rebut defendant’s prima facie showing regarding the alleged psychological injuries. Nor do we agree with the majority’s position that the claim under the 90/180-day category should not have been dismissed.
As to plaintiff’s alleged psychological injuries, while defendant met his moving burden, in our opinion, plaintiff’s proof failed to raise an issue of fact. In opposition to defendant’s cross motion, plaintiff relied on a narrative report from Barry Goldman. While Goldman concluded that plaintiff suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder as a consequence of the June 2014 accident, Goldman’s opinion has no probative value inasmuch as he failed to identify any objective tests or *1580diagnostic criteria used in reaching his opinion (see Sellitto v Casey, 268 AD2d 753, 755 [2000]; compare Flanders v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 124 AD3d 1035, 1036-1037 [2015]).
Moreover, Goldman opined that plaintiff’s psychological injuries were causally related to the June 2014 accident based, in part, on his examinations of plaintiff.* Goldman, however, examined plaintiff on only three occasions and his narrative report does not indicate that he performed any psychological testing during any of those examinations. Goldman also based his opinion upon his review of the medical records generated by his colleague, Michele Kay Goldman, but such medical records are not part of the record. Under these circumstances, we find that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to his alleged psychological injuries.
As to the 90/180-day category, contrary to the conclusion of the majority, we believe that defendant met his moving burden by demonstrating that plaintiff “has [not] been curtailed from performing his usual activities to a great extent” (Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 236 [1982]; see Palmer v Moulton, 16 AD3d 933, 935 [2005]). In this regard, although plaintiff testified that he can no longer play golf, he also admitted that he did not do so on regular basis. Furthermore, plaintiff testified that he had difficulty with cooking, putting on his shoes and socks and working with model trains, but there was no evidence indicating that his daily activities were substantially curtailed for at least 90 of the 180 days following the June 2014 accident (see Raucci v Hester, 119 AD3d 1044, 1047 [2014]; Davis v Cottrell, 101 AD3d 1300, 1303 [2012]). Nor did the reports or records from plaintiffs treating physicians place any limitations on his daily activities (see Cole v Roberts-Bonville, 99 AD3d 1145, 1147 [2012]; Womack v Wilhelm, 96 AD3d 1308, 1311 [2012]; Howard v Espinosa, 70 AD3d 1091, 1094 [2010]).
In response, plaintiff failed to tender objective proof demonstrating that he was “prevented from performing substantially all of the material acts that constituted [his] usual and customary daily activities for the relevant period” (Shea v Ives, 137 AD3d 1404, 1406 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Palmeri v Zurn, 55 AD3d 1017, 1019 [2008]; Clements v Lasher, 15 AD3d 712, 713-714 [2005]). Although Luis Mendoza, plaintiff’s treating physician, noted in his October 2014 report that he instructed plaintiff “to avoid all activities that may exacerbate his condition,” he did not *1581specify as to whether such directive stemmed from the June 2014 or September 2014 accident (see Davis v Cottrell, 101 AD3d at 1304). Nor does Mendoza’s conclusion in his affirmation that, in September 2014 prior to the second accident, plaintiff was “temporarily totally disabled” suffice to raise an issue of fact inasmuch as Mendoza did not “relate his diagnosis of injury to any constraint on plaintiff’s daily activities” (Trotter v Hart, 285 AD2d 772, 773 [2001]; see Davis v Cottrell, 101 AD3d at 1303; Howard v Espinosa, 70 AD3d at 1094). Accordingly, in our view, summary judgment was properly granted as to the 90/180-day category (see Clausi v Hall, 127 AD3d 1324, 1326 [2015]; Raucci v Hester, 119 AD3d at 1047).
For these reasons, we respectfully dissent insofar as we would dismiss plaintiff’s claim to the extent premised upon psychological injuries allegedly caused by the accident and the claim under the 90/180-day category.
Mulvey, J., concurs.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiff’s motion granted, defendant’s cross motion denied, and partial summary judgment awarded to plaintiff.

 Notably, Goldman, who is a family physician, failed to set forth any psychological training, experience or background in his narrative report.