Court Opinion

ID: 9966367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 20:08:19.330768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:52.900036
License: Public Domain

Strong v Monzon
               2024 NY Slip Op 31554(U)
                      May 1, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 452032/2020
                 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. 452032/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155                                                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

                                     SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                               NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:               HON. JAMES G. CLYNES                                                    PART                           22M

            ------------- -------------------- --- --- ------... --- ----- --- -------- ------------- -X   INDEX NO.        452032/2020
             TISHA STRONG, ADAM S. WALKER, VASHA WN D.
                                                                                                           MOTION DATE       06/10/2024
             WALKER

                                                          Plaintiff,                                       MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _ _00~1_ _~

                                                     - V -

             LUIS A. MONZON, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,                                                    DECISION+ ORDER ON
             SHARRELLE STRONG,                                                                                     MOTION

                                                         Defendants.

            ----------- -------- -------- ---------------------- -------- -------- ---------- ------ X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 00 I) I 00, IO I, I 02, I 03, 1o.i, 105,
            106,107,108,109, IIO, Ill, 112,113,114,115,116.117, 118,119,120,121,122,123.124, 125. 126,127,129,
            142,143,144,145,146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152,153,154
            were read on this motion to/for                                                SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOIN DER)

                       Upon the foregoing documents, the motion by Defendants Luiz A. Monzon and United

           Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) and the cross-motion by Sharelle Strong pursuant to CPLR 3212 for
           summary judgment and dismissal of the Complaint of Plaintiffs in its entirety on the ground that
           Plaintiffs fail to meet the serious injury threshold requirement mandated by Insurance Law 5102

           (d) and seeking such other further relief as the Court deems just and proper, is decided as follows:

                       Plaintiffs Tisha Strong, Adam Walker, and Vashawn Walker seek recovery for injuries

           allegedly arising out of the accident occurring on November 5, 2019. Plaintiffs were passengers

           in a motor vehicle which was allegedly owned and operated by S. Strong. At approximately
           8.20pm, Plaintiffs' vehicle allegedly collided with a truck, which was driven by Monzon and

           owned by UPS. Plaintiffs' Bill of Particulars alleges that T. Strong sustained injuries to her right

           knee, right shoulder, left shoulder, cervical spine, lumbosacral spine, thoracic spine, bilateral hip,

           and other injuries including pelvic segmental and somatic dysfunction, bilateral leg pain, bilateral

           arm discomfort, anxiety, insomnia, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Due to the accident, T.

           Strong stated that she had a right shoulder arthroscopy. A. Walker allegedly sustained injuries to

           his cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbosacral spine, and other injuries including headaches,

             452032/2020 STROI\G, TISHA vs. MOI\ZO\I, LlllS A.                                                               Page I of9
             Motion No. 001

                                                                                    1 of 9
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 452032/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

           vertigo, and post-traumatic stress disorder. V. Walker allegedly sustained injuries to his right
           shoulder, right knee, lumbosacral spine, cervical spine, thoracic spine, bilateral hip, and other
           injuries including peripheral neuropathy, myalgia, dizziness, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
           Due to the accident, V. Walker allegedly had to undergo surgery on his right knee and right
           shoulder.
                   The Court first addresses several preliminary issues raised by Plaintiffs.
                   Plaintiffs highlight that Defendants have not attached Plaintiffs' Bill of Particulars as an
           exhibit in its moving papers, and so. Defendants' independent medical examination reports do not
           adequately address Plaintiffs' claimed injuries. CPLR 3212 (b) requires that a motion for summary
           judgment ··shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof'.
           Pleadings are a requisite part of the record for a summary judgment motion and failure to include
           the pleadings may result in dismissal of the motion (Krasner v. Transcontinental Equities, Inc., 64
           AD2d 551 [1st Dept 1978]). The role of the Bill of Particulars, however, is to "amplify or
           supplement a pleading'' (Northway Engineering, Inc. v. Felix lndustr;es, Inc., 77 NY2d 332
           [ 1991 ]), and so, the omission of the Bill of Particulars from a summary judgment does not violate
           CPLR 3212 (b) (Walker v. Wright, 2020 NY Misc LEXIS 4500, *4). In any event, the Court
           retains the discretion to overlook the procedural defect of missing pleadings when the record is
           "sufficiently complete'', i.e. where a complete set of the papers is available from the materials
           submitted although the movant has not attached all of the pleadings to the motion (Washington
           Realty Owners, LLC v. 260 Wash. St., LLC, 105 Ad3d 675 [1st Dept 2013]). In the present case,
           while Defendants have not attached a copy of the Bill of Particulars, the record is ;'sufficiently
           complete" as Plaintiffs have adduced the Bill of Particulars as "Exhibit C" in Motion #2. and so
           the Bill of Particulars is before the Court.
                   Next, Plaintiffs argue that S. Strong's cross-motion for summary judgment should be
           denied as it was made against the Plaintiffs, who are not a moving-party. CPLR 2215 states that
           '"a party may serve upon the moving party a notice of cross-motion demanding relief'. Here,
           Monzon and UPS are the moving party, so it would be improper for S. Strong to file a cross-motion
           to seek relief from Plaintiffs. The mis-labelling of a motion for summary judgment as a cross-
           motion may be disregarded as a '"technical' defect," in particular where the non-moving party

            452032/2020 STRONG, TISIIA vs. MONZON, LlllS A.                                       Page 2 of9
            Motion :'llo. 001

[* 2]                                                         2 of 9
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 452032/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

           does not object and the cross-motion results in no prejudice to the non-moving party and the non-
           moving party had ample opportunity to be heard on the merits of the relief sought (Kershaw v.
           Hospira/for Special Surgery, 114 AD3d 75, 88 [1st Dept 2013]; Volpe v. Canfield, 237 AD2d 282,
           283 [2nd Dept 1997]). Given that S. Strong's cross-motion adopts the arguments in Monzon and
           UPS' motion papers, and in Plaintiffs' own words, "piggybacks" on the co-defendants' summary
           judgment papers, and Plaintiffs had an opportunity to respond to S. Strong's cross-motion, there
           is no prejudice to Plaintiffs. S. Strong's cross-motion should be thus allowed to proceed.
                   In a motion for summary judgment, the burden rests on the movant to establish that the
           plaintiff has not sustained a serious injury (Lowe v Bennett, 122 AD2d 728 [1st Dept 1986]). When
           movant has made such a showing, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to provide prima facie
           evidence to support the claim of serious injury (see Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017 [ l 985]).
                   Defendants rely on the affirmed independent orthopedic examination report of Dr. Andrew
           A. Bazos and the affirmed independent radiological evaluation report of Dr. Scott B. Berger. and
           the examination before trial (EBT) testimonies of Plaintiffs and non-party witness Nony Nordon.
           In opposition, Plaintiffs rely on the affirmed independent medical report of Dr. Kevin Weiner.

                   Plaintiff T. Strong
                   Dr. Bazos examined T. Strong on January 19, 2023. Dr. Bazos's impression was that T.
           Strong only suffered from soft tissue injuries to the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine,
           and bilateral shoulders, which were all resolved, with no objective evidence of any ongoing
           pathology. Dr. Bazos also noted that following the accident, none of the medical providers whom
           T. Strong visited documented any objective findings which were acute, traumatic, and accident
           related, as there were no notations of fractures, avulsions, dislocations, or dysfunctions. In Dr.
           Bazos' view. T. Strong's alleged injuries may be attributed to her extensive past medical history,·
           rather than the accident. T. Strong is obese and has multiple sclerosis (MS) and was also involved
           in a prior motor vehicle accident in 2018, following which she complained of pain in her cervical
           spine, thoracic spine, and lumbar spine. Dr. Bazos considered that T. Strong's complaints of pain
           and disability in her spine and left shoulder should be associated with her prior medical history
           and not the accident. Dr. Bazos stated that there are no objective findings which support T.
           Strong's alleged right knee and bilateral hip injuries. Instead, pains in these regions are more
            4~2032/2020 STRO:\'G, TISHA vs. MONZON, u:1s A.                                      Page 3 of9
            :\lotion :-.o. 001

                                                              3 of 9
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 452032/2020

  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

           commonly chronic pains suffered by obese persons. T. Strong's bilateral shoulder studies did not
           reflect any signs of trauma and while the studies revealed hypertrophic change of the
           acromioclavicular joint, such deformities are commonly associated with advanced and accelerated
           wear and tear within the rotator cuff and the surrounding soft tissue. T. Strong's lumbar and
           cervical spine MRls showed multilevel degenerative vertebral joint and disc disease, which
           corresponds to age-appropriate development of wear and tear.               There were no signs of
           compression, fractures, or ruptured ligaments. Dr. Bazos also considered that the right shoulder
           arthroscopy undergone by T. Strong was not medically necessary and did not have any clinical
           correlation to accident-related objective findings. Therefore, Dr. Bazos concluded that T. Strong
           had returned to her normal activities of daily living without any limitations, disabilities, or
           dysfunctions.
                   Plaintiffs argued that Dr. Bazos did not include the normal values or results for the bilateral
           rotation or bilateral bending of the lumbar spine. and the normal values and results for the Straight
           Leg Raise (SLG) test. Insofar as Dr. Bazos has not provided a range of normal values to compare
           Plaintiffs' range of motion testing, Dr. Bazos' findings are without probative value.          Stating
           Plaintiffs' range of motion without including a baseline norm to compare the ranges has eroded
           the reliability of Dr. Bazos' assessment, "leaving the court to speculate" as to their ultimate
           meaning (Bray v Rosas, 29 AD3d 422 [I st Dept 2006]).
                   Dr. Berger reviewed T. Strong's MRI examinations and determined that the MR images of
           her cervical spine demonstrate congenital spinal stenosis with superimposed spondylosis, which
           has shown expected progression since the prior exam. Dr. Berger stated that any treatments and/or
           surgery to T. Strong's cervical spine would not have been necessitated by the accident, but rather,
           would be solely due to T. Strong's chronic spinal stenosis and progressive spondylosis. which are
           common findings in MS patients. With regard to T. Strong's lumbar spine, the MR images
           demonstrate chronic degenerative changes but there is no evidence of any recent traumatic injury
           related to the accident.       The MR images of T. Strong's right shoulder demonstrated chronic
           arthritic changes of the right acromioclavicular joint with a large spur impinging on the rotator
           cuff, and a mild undersurface tear of the supraspinatus tendon which was present prior to the
           accident and was not caused or exacerbated by the accident. T. Strong's right shoulder also

            .tS2032/2020 STRO:,;G, TISHA vs. MONZON. LL'IS A.                                       Page4of9
            :\lotion '.\o. 001

                                                                4 of 9
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 452032/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

           demonstrated other degenerative changes, such as a chronic labral tear. Similar to Dr. Bazos'
           finding, Dr. Berger considered that T. Strong's right shoulder arthroscopy was not necessitated by
           the accident, but instead addressed internal derangements which pre-dated the accident.              T.
           Strong's left shoulder MR images revealed a chronic bursal surface tearing of the supraspinatus
           tendon, which remain unchanged from the study taken before the accident. Therefore, Dr. Berger

           opined that there is no evidence that the accident caused or exacerbated any condition related to
           T. Strong's left shoulder.

                     The Court is satisfied that Defendants have met their initial burden of establishing that T.

           Strong did not sustain serious injuries as a result of the accident under Insurance Law 5102 (d)
           (Perez v Rodriguez, 25 ADJd 506 [1st Dept 2006]). Therefore, the burden now shifts to T. Strong

           to produce prima facie evidence to support her claim of serious injury.

                     T. Strong relies on the affirmed narrative report of Dr. Weiner. Dr Weiner opined that
           approximately 60% of T. Strong's present disability, limitations, current symptoms in her spinal

           regions and shoulders are related to the accident and prognosis for recovery without injections and
           surgery is poor. In particular, T. Strong suffers from permanent partial disabilities to her spinal

           region, bilateral shoulders and right knee. In Dr. Weiner's opinion, although T. Strong had pre-
           existing symptoms in her spinal region and shoulders before the accident, the MRis taken post-

           accident revealed a worsening of her disc herniations in her cervical and lumbar spine as well as
           tearing to her shoulders. Dr. Weiner also stated that there is a causal relationship between T.
           Strong's limited range of motion, pain, and injuries and the accident. With regard to T. Strong's

           spinal region, the post-accident MRis revealed the following post-traumatic injuries: exacerbation

           of herniated discs at CS/6 and C6/7, exacerbation of bulging discs at C4/S and CS/6. herniated disc

           at C3/4, exacerbation of lumbar herniated discs with impingement at LJ/4 and L4/5, lumbar
           herniation at Ll/2, and lumbar bulging at L2/3. Dr. Weiner also performed an examination on T.

           Strong with a handheld goniometer and observed that she had limited range of motion in her

           cervical spine, lumbar spine, both shoulders, and right knee. Crucially, however, Dr. Weiner did

           not cite an authoritative source or standard for the normal values he cited in his report. It is

           '"inequitable and insufficient" to premise a grant of summary judgment on a doctor's range of
           motion findings if the doctor has not stated the source of the normal degrees (Wilks v. Baicham·,

            452032/2020 STRONG, TISHA vs. MONZON, LUIS A.                                          Page 5 of9
            :\,lotion No. 001

                                                            5 of 9
[* 5]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 452032/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

           Inc., 191 NYS3d 923 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023]; see also Rodriguez v Konate, 161 AD3d 565
           [l st Dept 20 I SJ).
                   However, given Dr. Weiner's findings of the disc herniations and tearing of T. Strong's
           cervical and lumbar spine and bilateral shoulders in her MRI images, T. Strong has raised a
           sufficient issue of fact and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is dismissed. T. Strong
           may thus be entitled to recover for all injuries causally related to the subject accident (see Linton
           v Nawaz, 14 NY3d 821 [2010]; Rubin v SMS Taxi Corp., 71 AD3d 548 [!st Dept 2010]).

                   Plaintiff A. Walker
                   Dr. Bazos performed an examination of A. Walker on January 19, 2023.             Dr. Bazos'
           impression is that A. Walker only sustained at most. minor. self-limited. soft-tissue strain to his
           cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine and no injury at all to the right shoulder, bilateral hips, and
           right knee as a result of the accident. Dr. Bazos noted that there was no indication of radicular
           symptoms into the upper or lower extremities which were reproducible upon orthopedic and
           neurological testing in a dermatomal pattern. There was also no documented motor weakness,
           sensory alterations, or asymmetry in deep tendon reflexes that corresponded with nerve
           compression, and no indication of an injury being sustained to the extremity joints. Accordingly,
           Dr. Bazos determined that the clinical objective examination was consistent with only simple
           sprain/strain injuries to the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Dr. Bazos considered that it was
           implausible that A. Walker sustained the other alleged injuries as he did not have subjective
           complaints or objective clinical examination findings regarding these areas for several weeks
           following the accident. Dr. Bazos concluded that A. Walker's alleged restrictions in motion are
           inconsistent and are not supported by any objective evidence of causally related injuries.
                   Next, Dr. Berger reviewed A. Walker's MRI reports. Dr. Berger was not able to review
           the actual images themselves since they had been lost by the imaging facility. Based on the reports,
           Dr. Berger's impression is that there is no imaging evidence of any recent traumatic injury to A.
           Walker's cervical spine, thoracic spine, or lumbar spine, which is related to the accident. However,
           as Defendants themselves acknowledge, the absence of the MRI images renders expert testimony
           as to the images inadmissible (Hambsch v. New York City Transit Authority, 63 NY2d 723, 725

            452032/2020 STRONG, TISHA vs. MONZON, Ll/1S A.                                        Page 6 of9
            Motion No. 001

                                                             6 of 9
[* 6]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 452032/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

           [1984] ["It was error to permit the doctor's testimony without producing the X rays and introducing
           them into evidence"]).
                   Nevertheless, based on the evidence provided by Dr. Bazos, the Court is satisfied that
           Defendants have met their initial burden of establishing that A. Walker did not sustain serious
           injuries from the accident and the burden now shifts to A. Walker to produce primajacie evidence
           to support his claim of serious injury.
                   Dr. Weiner examined A. Walker on June 4, 2023 and also reviewed A. Walker's MRI
           reports. Using a handheld goniometer, Dr. Weiner determined that A. Walker had a restricted
           range of motion in both his cervical spine and lumbar spine. As discussed above, Dr. Weiner's
           findings regarding A. Walker's restricted range of motion are speculative as Dr. Weiner did not
           cite the source of the stated normal values. Upon review of A. Walker's MRI reports, Dr. Weiner's
           impression is that A. Walker suffered from the following post-traumatic injuries: cervical disc
           herniations at C6/7 and C7/Tl. cervical disc bulging at C3/4, C4/5, CS/6, and C6/7, thoracic disc
           herniations at T6/7, T7/8, T8/9, lumbar disc herniation at L5/Sl, and lumbar disc bulge at L4/5.
           As discussed above, however, Dr. Weiner's testimony as to the images is inadmissible given the
           absence of the MRI images (Hambsch at 725). Regardless, it is well-established that disc bulges
           and herniations are insufficient to establish serious injury, in the absence of objective medical
           evidence showing the extent or degree of the limitations resulting from these specific injuries and
           their duration (Wetzel v Santana, 89 AD3d 554 [1st Dept 2011]).
                   The Court is not satisfied that A. Walker has raised a triable issue of fact and Defendants'
           motion for summary judgment against A. Walker is thereby granted.

                   Plaintiff V. Walker
                   Dr. Bazos examined V. Walker on January 19, 2023. Dr Bazos' impression is that based
           solely on V. Walker's subjective complaints, V. Walker sustained only minor soft tissue injuries
           to his neck, mid-back, right shoulder, lower back, bilateral hips, and right knees due to the accident,
           which would have healed within a few weeks. If V. Walker had sustained more severe injuries,
           he would have reported an immediate onset of swelling and severe pain with severe radicular
           symptomatology, swelling, instability, and difficulty weight-bearing, which would have correlated
           to the results of the MRI scans.            Such severe symptoms, however, were not documented.
            452032/2020 STROl\'G, TISHA vs. M01"ZON, LUIS A.                                        Page 7 of9
            :\lotion :"in. 001

[* 7]                                                          7 of 9
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 452032/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

           Therefore, Dr. Bazos stated that V. Walker's MRI studies demonstrated incidental findings which
           were the result of routine wear and tear. Dr. Bazos also opined that there was no way to associate
           V. Walker's right shoulder surgery and right knee surgery with the accident, as there was no
           evidence of ongoing severe right shoulder and right knee pain, and MRI scans did not demonstrate
           findings consistent with acute trauma which could be related to the accident.         In Dr. Bazos'
           opinion, V. Walker only required conservative and non-operative treatment, i.e., physical therapy,
           to his cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, and right knee, and there was no
           need for injections or surgical procedures to his lumbar spine. right shoulder. and right knee.
           Finally, with regard to V. Walker's alleged restriction in range of motion. Dr. Bazos considered
           that the restriction was inconsistent and was not supported by objective evidence of causally
           related injuries. Instead, the alleged restrictions were based solely on effort and V. Walker's
           subjective reports of pain.
                   Dr. Berger reviewed the MRI images of V. Walker·s lumbar spine, right knee, and right
           shoulder, and similarly concluded that there are no findings to suggest a recent traumatic injury to
           any of the above regions. Dr. Berger stated that there is no evidence that the accident caused or
           exacerbated any conditions related to V. Walker's lumbar spine. right shoulder. or right knee.
           Moreover, Dr. Berger noted that V. Walker's right shoulder arthroscopy and right knee
           arthroscopy were not necessitated by the accident but rather, were necessitated by chronic
           degenerative changes.
                   The Court is satisfied that Defendants have met their initial burden of establishing that V.
           Walker did not sustain serious injuries from the accident and the burden now shifts to V. Walker
           to produce prima facie evidence to support his claim of serious injury.
                   Dr. Weiner examined V. Walker on June 25, 2023 and took measurements using a handheld
           goniometer. Dr. Weiner's examination revealed that V. Walker had restricted range of motion in
           his right knee, right shoulder, and lumbar spine. As discussed above, Dr. Weiner's assessment of
           V. Walker's range of motion is speculative, given that he did not cite the source of the normal
           values to which he has referred in his report. In addition, Dr. Weiner reviewed V. Walker's
           medical records and MRI images and his impressions were that V. Walker sustained the followed
           post-traumatic injuries: right knee meniscus tear, superior labral tear and anterior labral tear of

            452032/2020 STRONG, TISHA vs. MONZON, LlllS A.                                        Page 8 of9
            Motion No. 001

                                                             8 of 9
[* 8]
                                                                                                           INDEX NO. 452032/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155                                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

            right shoulder, and lumbar bulge at LS-SI. Dr. Weiner concluded that V. Walker had sustained
            permanent injuries to his lumbar spine, right shoulder and right knee due to the accident. Both V.
            Walker's arthroscopic surgery to repair the meniscus tear to his right knee and the arthroscopic
            repair to his right shoulder were medically necessary and were required by the accident.
                     V. Walker has shown sufficient evidence of serious injury to his right shoulder, right knee,
            and lumbar spine to raise an issue of fact, and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.
            V. Walker may thus be entitled to recover for all injuries causally related to the subject accident.
                     Accordingly, it is
                     ORDERED that the motion and cross-motion by Defendants for summary judgment

            against A. Walker and dismissal of A. Walker's Complaint is GRANTED; and it is further
                     ORDERED that the motion and cross-motion by Defendants for summary judgment

            against T. Strong and V. Walker and dismissal of T. Strong and V. Walker's Complaint is
            DENIED; 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, Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this Decision and

            Order upon all Defendants with Notice of Entry.
                     This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                      5/1/2024
                        DATE

                                      ~
             CHECK ONE;                    CASE DISPOSED                  l'\01'\-FI'.'>AL DISPOSITION

                                           GRA'.'iTED         □ DEN1ED    GRANTED I'.'> PART             □ OTHER
             APPLICATIO:>.:                SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE;         INCLLDES TRANSFER/REASSIGc>"   FIDLCIAR\ APPOINTMDIT          □ REFEREciCE

             45203212020 STROI\G, TISHA vs. MONZON, LUIS A.                                                Page 9 of9
             Motion No. 001

                                                                9 of 9
[* 9]