Court Opinion

ID: 9916490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:07:59.930741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:30.030990
License: Public Domain

Carrington v Ibragimov
               2024 NY Slip Op 30017(U)
                     January 2, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 528494/2021
                   Judge: Debra Silber
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.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 04:55 PM                                                                   INDEX NO. 528494/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024

            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
            COUNTY OF KINGS : PART 9
            ____________________________________________

            SEON CARRINGTON,                                                                          DECISION / ORDER
                                                            Plaintiff,                                Index No. 528494/2021
                     -against-                                                                        Motion Seq. No. 3

            AMIRJON IBRAGIMOV
            and TEMURJON IBRAGIMOV,

                                       Defendants.
            ____________________________________________
            Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of defendants’
            motion for summary judgment.

                               Papers                                                                     NYSCEF Doc.

            Notice of Motion, Affirmation and Exhibits Annexed....................                        42-48
            Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits.........................................               50-58
            Reply Affirmation..........................................................................   59

                     Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order on this motion is as

            follows:

                     This is a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred

            on April 11, 2021. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was driving his own vehicle and

            defendant Amirjon Ibragimov was driving a vehicle owned by co-defendant Temurjon

            Ibragimov when they came into contact with each other at the intersection of Sutter Avenue

            and Snediker Avenue in Brooklyn, New York.

                     The defendants timely move for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s

            complaint, pursuant to CPLR Rule 3212, on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a

            “serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

                     Plaintiff’s bill of particulars alleges that he sustained injuries to his cervical spine and

            left shoulder as a result of the accident. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was thirty-four

                                                                      1 of 5
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 04:55 PM                                                INDEX NO. 528494/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024

            years old. Plaintiff testified that he was transported by ambulance from the scene of the

            accident to the Brookdale University Hospital emergency room.

                   The defendants provide, in support of their motion, an affirmed report from an

            orthopedist, the plaintiff’s EBT transcript, plaintiff’s bill of particulars, the pleadings, and an

            affirmation of counsel.

                   Howard A. Kiernan, M.D., an orthopedist, examined plaintiff on May 24, 2023, two

            years and one month after the accident. He provides an affirmed IME report [Doc 48] that

            states that he reviewed plaintiff's bill of particulars, the emergency room record from

            Brookdale University Hospital, and the reports of the MRI’s of the plaintiff’s left shoulder,

            cervical spine, and lumbar spine.

                   In his report, Dr. Kiernan states that he conducted range of motion tests on the body

            parts that the plaintiff claims were injured in the subject accident. In his examination of the

            plaintiff’s cervical spine and left shoulder, he reports that he found that the plaintiff had

            normal ranges of motion in all planes when compared to “normals”. For unknown reasons,

            Dr. Kiernan also conducted range of motion tests on plaintiff’s thoracic spine, lumbar spine,

            right shoulder, right and left elbows, wrists, hands, hips, knees, ankles and feet, none of

            which are body parts claimed to have been injured in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars. Dr.

            Kiernan’s diagnosis is limited to the plaintiff’s cervical spine and left shoulder, both of which

            he reports as “sprain/strain – resolved.” Dr. Kiernan goes on to opine that that “[b]ased on

            my physical examination, Mr. Carrington has reached end result in my specialty,

            Orthopedics. There is no need for physical therapy. There is no need for household help,

            special transportation, durable medical equipment or diagnostic testing.”

                   The moving defendants contend that their medical evidence, combined with

            plaintiff’s testimony at his EBT, eliminates all categories of injury in the statute. Plaintiff

            testified at his EBT, held on November 30, 2022, that he was working for a temp agency,

                                                         2 of 5
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 04:55 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 528494/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024

            mostly doing security-related jobs, and was working at Magnolia’s Women Shelter on the

            date of the accident [Doc 47, pp 15-16]. He further testified that he missed two weeks from

            his job as a result of the subject accident [id. pp 17, 18].

                   The court finds that defendants have made a prima facie showing of their entitlement

            to summary judgment (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v

            Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The affirmed report of the orthopedist who examined

            the plaintiff indicates that he did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the subject

            accident. Further, plaintiff’s testimony that he missed only two weeks from work makes a

            prima facie showing on the 90/180-day category of injury (see Dacosta v Gibbs, 139 AD3d

            487, 488 [1st Dept 2016] [“Plaintiff's testimony indicating that she missed less than 90 days

            of work in the 180 days immediately following the accident and otherwise worked

            “light duty” is fatal to her 90/180–day claim”]; Strenk v Rodas, 111 AD3d 920 [2d Dept

            2013] [plaintiff returned to work on a partial basis during the relevant period of time ];

            Hamilton v Rouse, 46 AD3d 514, 516 [2d Dept 2007] [“The plaintiff testified at trial that he

            missed only one month of work, that he then returned to work on a part-time basis, and

            that, after another month, he had resumed working on a full-time basis”]). Dr. Kiernan’s

            report also makes a prima facie showing with regard to the other categories of injury

            claimed by the plaintiff in his bill of particulars. The burden of proof then shifts to the plaintiff.

                   Plaintiff contends that the medical evidence he has submitted overcomes the motion

            and raises a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury under

            Insurance Law § 5102(d). The plaintiff opposes the motion with an attorney’s affirmation,

            two affirmed reports from Dr. John McGee, plaintiff’s treating osteopath, and a multitude of

            medical records that are not in admissible form. As such, the court did not consider the

            emergency room record from Brookdale University Hospital, plaintiff’s physical therapy,

            acupuncture or chiropractic records, the records from Motion Medical Diagnostics,

                                                          3 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 04:55 PM                                          INDEX NO. 528494/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024

            plaintiff’s MRI reports, or the records from Dr. Rene Hilderbrand, Dr. William Jones, or

            Teddy Caliste, P.A. in determining this motion.

                  Dr. McGee first treated plaintiff three days after the accident, on April 14, 2021. At

            the plaintiff’s first exam, Dr. McGee noted reduced ranges of motion in the plaintiff’s left

            shoulder, cervical spine, and lumbar spine [Doc 53, p 1-5]. At his recent exam, conducted

            on October 10, 2023, when Dr. McGee tested the range of motion in the plaintiff’s cervical

            spine, he noted that “I found flexion was limited to 30 degrees (normal 60 degrees) and

            extension was 20 degrees (normal 50 degrees). His left and right rotation was limited to 20

            and 40 degrees respectively (normal 80 degrees) and right and left lateral flexion was 20

            and 30 degrees respectively (normal 80 degrees).”

                  Upon examination of the plaintiff’s lumbar spine, he noted that “his forward flexion

            was limited to 60 degrees (normal 90 degrees) and extension was 10 degrees (normal 30

            degrees). Her [sic] left and right rotation was limited to between 2 and 30 respectively

            (normal 45 degrees) and right and left lateral flexion 20 degrees (normal 35 degrees).”

                  When Dr. McGee examined the plaintiff’s left shoulder, he found that “Carrington's

            left shoulder was similarly limited. I determined his flexion was limited to 130 degrees

            (normal 180 degrees), left abduction was limited to 120 degrees (normal 180 degrees), left

            extension was limited to between 20 degrees (normal 50 degrees). Neer test was positive

            for compression. Drop arm and crossed chest tests were positive” [Doc 55].

                  Dr. McGee states that “I have read the report of Dr. Howard Kiernan, and I disagree

            with his conclusions” and opines that “I have concluded, to a reasonable degree of medical

            certainty, that the medical conditions set forth above were caused by the April 11, 2021

            automobile accident, and have resulted in a significant limitation and loss of use of

            Carrington's cervical and lumbar spine and left shoulder. The injuries and restrictions are

            permanent and consequential. It is probable that he will experience pain and restricted

                                                     4 of 5
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 04:55 PM                                                     INDEX NO. 528494/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024

            range of motion and mobility for the balance of his life.” He further opines that “[t]he injuries

            resulting in demonstrated, objectively determined range of motion deficits are significant

            and permanent. The conservative treatment he received did not allow her [sic] to reach

            preinjury function. I believe to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the injury set

            forth above and consequent loss of range of motion were objectively proven and will persist

            to a degree throughout Carrington's life and may require additional treatment and care.

            This is likely to include injection therapy and, as he ages, surgery to his neck and/or lower

            back and/or shoulder cannot be ruled out.”

                    The court finds that the plaintiff has overcome the motion and raised a triable issue

            of fact as to whether he sustained a “serious injury” as a result of the subject accident (see

            Young Chan Kim v Hook, 142 AD3d 551, 552 [2d Dept 2016]). Dr. McGee opines that

            plaintiff   has   significant,   quantified   restrictions   in    his   range     of   motion,   both

            contemporaneously with the accident and recently. Further, Dr. McGee opines as to the

            permanent nature of plaintiff’s injuries and states that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the

            subject accident. Thus, the parties’ doctors raise a “battle of the experts.” This is sufficient

            to raise an issue of fact which requires a trial.

                    Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion is denied.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

            Dated: January 2, 2024

                                                                              ENTER:
                                                                                     g-

                                                                          Hon. Debra Silber, J.S.C.

                                                          5 of 5
[* 5]