Majority
Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the injuries plaintiff sustained to his cervical and thoracic spine and his shoulders were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Defendants submitted, inter alia, an affirmed report of a radiologist who opined that the MRI films of the claimed injured body parts reflected a chronic preexisting condition, and found no radio-graphic evidence of trauma or any causally related injury (see Spencer v Golden Eagle, Inc., 82 AD3d 589 , 590-591 [1st Dept 2011]).
Plaintiffs opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. His physician’s affirmed reports of the physical examinations of plaintiff measured range of motion limitations without comparing them to a normal standard, so that any claimed deficits could not be properly assessed to see whether they are significant (see Winters v Cruz, 90 AD3d 412 [1st Dept 2011]). Moreover, plaintiff failed to tender a recent physical examination by
Cases cited
- Spencer v. Golden Eagle, Inc. 82 AD3d 589 at 590-591 p. 480
- Winters v. Cruz 90 AD3d 412 p. 480
- Vega v. MTA Bus Co. 96 AD3d 506 p. 481
- Townes v. Harlem Group, Inc. 82 AD3d 583 p. 481
- Rosa v. Mejia 95 AD3d 402 at 404 p. 481
- Barry v. Arias 94 AD3d 499 p. 481