Majority
The affidavit of Blake’s treating chiropractor Dr. Denny Julewicz also failed to raise a triable issue of fact. While Julewicz noted that Blake had significant limitations in the ranges of motion of the lumbar and cervical regions of his spine upon initial testing conducted on July 14, 2004, no such significant limitations existed when Blake was re-examined on November 14, 2008. In fact, on November 14, 2008 Blake had normal lumbar spine range of motion. While Blake showed some cervical spine limitation upon the testing on November 14, 2008 those limitations were not significant within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and did not amount to a serious injury (see Waldman v Dong Kook Chang, 175 AD2d 204 [1991]; see also Trotter v Hart, 285 AD2d 772 [2001]).
Blake also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a medically-determined injury of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing his usual and customary daily activities for 90 of the 180 days following the subject accident (see Sainte-Aime v Ho, 274 AD2d 569 [2000]).
Cases cited
- Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc. 98 NY2d 345 p. 795
- Stock v. Otis Elevator Co. 52 AD3d 816 p. 795
- Grasso v. Angerami 79 NY2d 813 p. 795
- McNeil v. New York City Transit Authority 60 AD3d 1018 p. 795
- Sapienza v. Ruggiero 57 AD3d 643 p. 795
- Waldman v. Dong Kook Chang 175 AD2d 204 p. 795
- Sainte-Aime v. Ho 274 AD2d 569 p. 795