Court Opinion

ID: 9962550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:10:40.658348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:01.399113
License: Public Domain

Carraway v Larose
               2024 NY Slip Op 31339(U)
                     April 15, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 513175/2020
                 Judge: Wavny Toussaint
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 04/16/2024 10:45 AM                                           INDEX NO. 513175/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 178                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

                                                                       At an IAS Term, Part 70 of the
                                                                       Supreme Court of the State of New
                                                                       York, held in and for the County of
                                                                       Kings, at the Courthouse, at 360
                                                                       Adams S.\~et, Brooklyn, New York,
                                                                       on the 15'."'"day of April, 2024.

           PRESENT:
           HON. WAVNYTOUSSAINT ,
                           Justice.
           --------------------------------------------------------------------X
           SIMONE N. CARRAWAY,

                                         Plaintiff,                            Index No.: 513175/2020

                          -against-
                                                                               DECISION AND ORDER
           HERMANN LAROSE, BROTHERS MOBILITY LLC,
           FEN LIANG, INESA L. ZELDIN, EAN HOLDING LLC
           AND PAUL ANTHONY MCINTOSH,                                              · Motion Seq. 8

                                         Defendants.
           ------------------------- ------------------------------------------X
           The following e-filed papers read herein:                                NYSCEF Doc.
           Nos.:

           Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/
           Petition/Cross Motion and
           Affidavits (Affirmations) _ _ _ _ _ _ __                                  153-167, 171
           Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations)_ _ _ __                                173-175
           Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) _ _ _ _ __                                176-177

                  Upon the forgoing papers, defendants Hermann Larose ("Larose") and

           Brothers Mobility LLC ("Brothers Mobility" and collectively as "movants" or

           "defendants") move for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212, granting summary

          judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice due to plaintiff's failure

[* 1]                                                  1 of 11
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 10:45 AM                                      INDEX NO. 513175/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 178                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

           to sustain a serious injury based on New York State Insurance Law § 5102(d)

           ("serious injury threshold").

                                             BACKGROUND

                   This is a personal injury action stemming from a five-vehicle accident on the

           eastbound upper level of the Verrazzano Bridge, Staten Island, New York on June

            11, 2019. At the time of the accident, plaintiff alleges she was stopped at a red light

           when she was rear-ended'. At the front was a vehicle operated and owned by

           defendant Paul Anthony Mcintosh. A second vehicle was operated by defendant

           lnesa L. Zeldin and owned by EAN Holding LLC. A third vehicle was operated and

           owned by plaintiff. A fourth vehicle was operated and owned by defendant Fen

           Liang, and a fifth vehicle was operated by defendant Hermann Larose and owned by

           defendant _Brothers Mobility LLC. Plaintiff alleges that the fifth vehicle struck the

           fourth vehicle, which rear-ended the plaintiff's vehicle and thereby caused plaintiff

           to rear-end the vehicle directly in front.

                                       PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                  On or about July 22, 2020, plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover

           damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained in the accident by filing a

           Summons and Verified Complaint against defendants Hermann Larose, Brothers

           Mobility LLC, Fen Liang, lnesa L. Zeldin, EAN Holding LLC and Paul Anthony

           Mcintosh. On or about August 18, 2020, defendant Liang e-fi_led an Answer with a

                                                        2

[* 2]                                              2 of 11
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 10:45 AM                               INDEX NO. 513175/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 178                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

           crossclaim for indemnification or contribution against co-defendants Hermann

           Larose, Brothers Mobility LLC, Inesa L. Zeldin, EAN Holding LLC, and Paul

           Anthony Mcintosh. 1· On or about August 24, 2020, defendant . Paul Anthony

           Mcintosh e-filed his Answer with a cross-complaint for contribution and/or

           indemnification against co-defendants EAN Holding LLC, Jnesa L. Zeldin, Brothers

           Mobility LLC, Hermann Larose and Fen .Liang. 2 On or about August 28, 2020,

           defendants Inesa L. Zeldin and EAN Holding, LLC e-filed their Answer with a

           crossclaim for indemnification against co-defendants Herp,ann Larose, Brothers

           Mobility LLC, Fen Liang, and Paul Anthony Mcintosh. 3 On or about September 1,

           2020, defendants Inesa L. Zeldin and EAN Holding LLC, e-filed their Answer to

           co-defendant Liang's crossclaim and co-defendant Paul Anthony Mcintosh's cross-

           complaint.4 On or about October 27, 2020, defendants Hermann Larose and Brothers

           Mobility LLC e-filed their Answer with a cross-complaint for indemnification

           against co-defendants Fen Liang, Jnesa L. Zeldin, EAN Holdirig LLC, and Paul

           Anthony Mcintosh. 5 On or about November 11, 2020, defendants Inesa L. Zeldin

           and EAN Holding LLC e-filed their Answer to co-defendants Hermann Larose and

           Brothers Mobility LLC's cross-complaint. 6

           1 NYSCEF Document number 8.
           2 NYSCEF Document number 10.
           3 NYSCEF Document number 14.
           4 NYSCEF Document number 19 and 20.
           5 NYSCEF Document number 22.

           6 NYSCEF Document number 28.

                                                    3

[* 3]                                            3 of 11
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 10:45 AM                                        INDEX NO. 513175/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 178                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

                    By a stipulation of partial discontinuance dated October 25, 2022, the action

           was discontinued as against defendant Paul Anthony Mcintosh. 7 On August 31,

            2023, a Note of Issue was e-file& By stipulations of partial ~iscontinuance dated

            October 25, 2023, the action was discontinued as against defendants Inesa L. Zeldin

            and EAN Holdings, LLC, along with the cross-complaint by co-defendants Hermann

            Larose and Brothers Mobility and crossclaim by co-defendant Fen Liang against

            lnesa L. Zeldin and EAN Holdings, LLC. 8 On October 30, 2023, movants e-filed

            this motion. By attorney affirmation dated December 20, 2023, defendant Fen Liang

            adopted co-defendants' arguments to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint. In light of the

            stipulations of discontinuance, the Court will address the motion only as it relates to

           the movants and co-defendant Liang.

                                                  The Parties' Positions

           Defendants' Motion/or Summary Judgment

                    Defendants contend that plaintiffs alleged injuries fail to constitute a serious

            injury under any of the nine categories as defined under the New York State

           Insurance Law § 5102 (d).- They argue the evidence coupled with the plaintiffs

           August 17, 2022 deposition testimony, medical records, and medical report of Dr.

           Andrew Bazos ("Bazos")             show that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury.

           7   NYSCEF Document numbers 102.
           8 NYSCEF Document numbers 152,168 and 169.

                                                         4

[* 4]                                                 4 of 11
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 10:45 AM                                         INDEX NO. 513175/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 178                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

           Defendants additionally submit, inter alia, the report of Dr. Appasaheb Naik

            ("Naik"), plaintiff's treating doctor.

                    The Naik report provides that the plaintiff had, inter alia, diminished range of

           motion in her cervical spine, lumbar spine, left shoulder, and knee. She also has

           herniated discs, disc bulges, tears in her left shoulder and a tom meniscus in her left

            knee. The plaintiff was advised to do, inter, alia, MRis, physical therapy, chiropractic

           treatment and to continue the latter two after subsequent follow-ups.

                    The Bazos report notes that the plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries to the

           cervical spine, thoracic spine, and lumbar spine, left shoulder, and left knee. Dr.

           Bazos opined that the plaintiff has no accident-related disability .or limitations in

           performing her normal daily activities, has made a complete recovery from her

            accident-related injuries, requires no additional medical treatment, and did not

           sustain a diagnosis of acute traumatic right carpal tunnel syndro_me as a result of the

            subject accident.

                    At her deposition, the plaintiff testified that Dr. Naik told her she was disabled

           and was unable to perform her functions of her job (as a MTA transit operator). 9

           Thereafter, she received acupuncture, chiropractic, physical therapy and electrodes

           to help with her pain from her injuries. 10 Defendants noted that the plaintiff

           9 Plaintiff's EBT tr at page 135, lines 18-25 to page 136, lines 2-5.

           10 Plaintiffs EBT tr at page I 31, lines 6-14.

                                                                       5

[* 5]                                                             5 of 11
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 10:45 AM                                                               INDEX NO. 513175/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 178                                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

           confirmed there were no fractures to her body, and no doctor has told her that she

           required surgery as a result of the accident. 11 Plaintiff returned to work around

           August 3, 2019. 12 The plaintiff also testified that she has not made any requests at

           work for accommodations due to any issues related to the accident. 13 However, she

           continued to experience pain in her left shoulder, back, knee, and wrist. 14 'The

           plaintiff stopped treatment around October or early November 2019 when she found

           out she was pregnant. 15

           Plaintiff's Opposition

                       In oppositio.n, the plaintiff argues she has incurred a significant limitation and

           loss of use of a body function or system. Plaintiff submits and relies on the medical

           report of Dr. Joyce Goldberg ("Goldberg"), a physiatrist. After a review of the

           history, diagnostic test results, medical reports and a physical examination of the

           plaintiff, Dr. Goldberg opines that the plaintiffs injuries are causally related to the

           subject motor vehicle accident. In her report, Dr. Goldberg quantified restrictions in

           the range of motion of plaintiffs cervical spine, lumbar spine, left shoulder, left

           wrist, and left knee. Dr. Goldberg concludes 'that the plaintiff has incurred a

           permanent consequential limitation of her cervical spine, lumbar spine, left shoulder,

           11 Plaintiff's EBT tr at page 135, linesl4-l 7,

           12 NYCSEF Doc. No. 165, page 3.
           13   Plaintiffs EBT tr at page I 09, line I 0-14.
           14 Plaintiffs EBT tr at page 137, lines 16-25 to page 138, lines 2-8.

           15 Plaintiffs EBT tr at page 108, lines 20-25 to page 109, lines 2-9; page 133, lines 2-12.

                                                                      6

[* 6]                                                            6 of 11
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 10:45 AM                                                                   INDEX NO. 513175/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 178                                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

           left wrist, and left knee, will never fully recover, and has permanent impairment and

           disability.

                      The plaintiff further argues that she has established a serious injury under the

           90/180 category through her deposition testimony, where she testified that prior to

           the subject accident, she played video games. 16 However, after the accident, she was

           unable to play video games for three months due to the subject accident's impact to

           her left hand. 17 Her argument is· further supported by the Goldberg medical report in

           which Dr. Goldberg determined that the subj~ct accident is the sole competent

           producing cause of the plaintiffs injuries. Dr. Goldberg finds that the plaintiff "has

           difficulty with prolonged walking, standing, sitting, bending, twisting, driving,

           sleeping, when lying in bed, when carrying, lifting, pushing and/or pulling heavy

           objects , when using her left arm/hand, when arising from a chair or bed, when

           walking up and down stairs and when performing household chores." 18

           Defendants' Reply

                      Defendants contend that the Goldberg report should not be considered, as Dr.

           Goldberg was never properly disclosed or formally exchanged by the plaintiff. They

           argue the Goldberg report is conclusory, as it lacks key details including, inter alia,

           a statement of records by specific providers reviewed in preparation of the report;

           16   Plaintiffs EBT tr at page 142, lines 5-12.
           17 Plaintiffs EBT tr at page 142, lines 13-25 to page 143, lines 2-8 and 25 to page 144, lines 2-22.
           18   NYCSEF Doc. No. 175, page 5.

                                                                     7

[* 7]                                                            7 of 11
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 10:45 AM                                      INDEX NO. 513175/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 178                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

           the doctor's own credentials; the identification of the diagnostic facilities in which

           the MRI and x-ray films were originated; an explanation for her claim that the

            plaintiff will live in permanent pain for the rest of her life despite the plaintiff's

           contradicting testimony. Additionally, the defendants note that there was no

           reference to the plaintiffs four-year long gap in treatment by the plaintiff or Dr.

           Goldberg. Defendants reiterates that the plaintiff failed to meet a serious injury

           threshold particularly under the significant limitation of use of a body function or

           system category and that plaintiff failed to show she was prevented from performing

           substantially all materials acts that constituted her usual and customary daily

           activities for 90 of the first 180 days after the accident. Moreover, they point to Dr.

           Bazos' report that the plaintiff's disc herniations affecting her cervical spine and

           lumbar spine and issues to her left knee are pre-existing issues derived from a 2013

           accident.

                                              DISCUSSION

                        "CPLR 3 101 (d)( 1)(i) requires a party to disclose his or her
                        expert witness and certain expert information when served
                        with a proper demand, but does not require a response at
                        any particular time or 'mandate that a party be precluded
                        from proffering expert testimony merely because of
                        noncompliance with the statute.' Trial courts are vested
                        with broad discretion 'in making determinations
                        concerning matters of disclosure,' including imposing a
                        penalty on a party for its failure to comply with CPLR
                        3 l0l(d)(I )(i). Generally, preclusion is unwarranted
                        without evidence of intentional or willful failure to
                        disclose and a showing of prejudice by the party seeking

                                                      8

[* 8]                                             8 of 11
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 10:45 AM                                      INDEX NO. 513175/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 178                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

                         preclusion." (Mazzurco v Gordon, 173 AD3d 1001, 1002
                         [2d Dep't 2019][internal citations omitted]; Rivers v
                         Birnbaum, 102 AD3d 26, 38 [2d Dep't 2012])

                  Here, the Court has discretion to consider Dr. Goldberg's medical report

            notwithstanding the plaintiffs failure to disclose Dr. Goldberg prior to the filing of

            a note of issue (Id). Moreover, there is no evidence that the plaintiffs failure to

            disclose her expert's information was intentional _or willful, and there is no showing

            that her nondisclosure was prejudiced to the defendants, as they had an opportunity

            to refute the plaintiffs contentions in their reply (Abreu v Metro. Transp. A uth., 117

            AD3d 972, 974 [2d Dep't 2014]).

                  The drastic remedy of summary judgment should be granted only if there are

            no triable issues of fact (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853

            [1985]). The burden rests on the party moving for summary judgment, who must

           make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw, tendering

            sufficient evidence in admissible form, demonstrating the absence of material issues

           of fact (Manicone v City of New York, 75 AD3d 535, 537 [2d Dep't 2010]). Once

           the moving party has made a showing of sufficient evidence, the _burden shifts to the

           opposing party to produce evidence in admissible form sufficient to establish the

           existence of triable issues of fact (Gesuale v Campanelli & Assocs., P.C., 126 AD3d

           936, 937 [2d Dep't 2015]). "The function of the court on a motion for summary

           judgment is not to resolve issues of fact or determine matters of credibility, but

                                                      9

[* 9]                                              9 of 11
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 10:45 AM                                     INDEX NO. 513175/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 178                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

           merely to determine whether such issues exist" (Piecraft Wantagh, LLC v Willow

           Wood Assocs., L.P., 216 AD3d 1010, 1013 [2d Dep't 2023]; Charles v Am. Dream

           Coaches, 210 AD3d 948, 949 [2d Dep't 2022]) .. "If there is any doubt as to the

           existence of a triable issue of fact, the motion for summary judgment must be.

           denied" (Morejon v New York City Trans.it Auth., 216 AD3d 134, 136 [2d Dep't

           2023]).

                 Here, even if the Court were to find that defendants had made a prima facie

           showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the opposition raises triable issues of

           fact as to whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury in light of plaintiffs initial
                                                                                                             I

           treatment records of Dr. Naik and the recent medical report of Dr: Goldberg, which               I
                                                                                                            .I
           alleges, that after examining the plaintiff and reviewing prior medical records, there

           were quantified restrictions in the range of motion of plaintiffs cervical spine,

           lumbar spine, left shoulder, left wrist, and left knee, and that injuries sustained by

           plaintiff were causally related to the subject accident ( Owens v Elrac, LLC, 213

           AD3d 684, 685 [2d Dep 't 2023] citing Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 217-219 [2011 ];

           Walker v Esses, 72 AD3d 938,938 [2d Dep't 2010]).

                 Generally, a cessation .of treatment is not dispositive, and the law .does not

          require a record of needless treatment in order to survive summary judgment

          (Pomme/ls v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]). However, a plaintiff who claims

          "serious injury" must offer some reasonable explanation for an extended gap in

                                                    10

[* 10]                                           10 of 11
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 10:45 AM                                           INDEX NO. 513175/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 178                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

           treatment or cessation of treatment (Id.). This Court· has not considered the

            defendants' contention regarding a gap in treatment, as it was improperly raised for

           the first time in their reply papers (Carrier v Gleba, 213 AD3d 629, 630 [2d Dep't

            2023] citing Diaz-Montez v JEA Bus Co., Inc., 175 AD3d 1384, 1386 [2d Dep't

            2019]; Davis-Hassan v Siad, 101 AD3d. 932, 933, (2d Dep't 2012]). In any case

           plaintiff explains she stopped treatment because she was pregnant.

                  Accordingly, it is hereby

                  ORDERED that defendants motion for summary judgment to dismiss the

           plaintiff's complaint (Seq. 08) is hereby denied in its entirety.

                  This constitutes the decision arid order of the court.

                                                                           ENTER

                                                                           J.S.C.
                                                              Hon. Wavny-Toussaint
                                                                      J.S.C.

                                                      11

[* 11]                                            11 of 11