Articles Posted in Bronx

Published on:

This is an action for personal injury in which a Bronx man alleges that he sustained an injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident. A vehicle owned by a cab cormpany struck the man’s vehicle in the rear. The man claims that as a result of the accident he sustained spine injury, back pain, muscle spasms in lumbar spine and radiculopathy. The opponent however requests to dismiss the case agasint them on the ground that the man failed to meet the serious injury threshold.

In support of their motion, the opponents submitted the affirmed medical report of a radiologist who reviewed the MRI of the man’s thoracic spine. The opponent also submitted the affirmed medical report of a board certified neurologist and the man’s deposition testimony.

The Westchester radiologist found a scoliosis and diffuse degenerative changes of the thoracic intervertebral discs of the man and concluded that the small posterior disc protrusions present are of uncertain age and etiology and may be degenerative in nature.

Continue reading

Published on:

On 6 July 2006, plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident. Consequently, plaintiff filed a personal injury action against The Bronx defendant to recover damages for the injuries he sustained as a result of the accident. In opposition, defendant moved for a motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that plaintiff has not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law.

The issue that was brought before the court for resolution was whether or not plaintiff has sustained a personal injury that is within the definition of serious injury under Insurance Law, and, as such, entitles him to recover damages from defendant.

As provided for under the no-fault law, in order to maintain an action for personal injury, a plaintiff must establish that a serious injury has been sustained. This is pursuant to the ruling of the court in the landmark case of Licari v. Elliot which was decided sometime in 1982. As a rule, the proponent of a motion for summary judgment must tender sufficient evidence to show the absence of any material issue of fact and the right to judgment as a matter of law; as held in the case of Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, in 1986, and the case of Winegrad v. New York Univ. Medical Center, in 1985. Pursuant to the court’s ruling in the case of Lowe v. Bennett, which was decided by the 1st Department sometime in 1986, the burden rests on defendants to establish, by the submission of evidentiary proof in admissible form, that plaintiff has not suffered a serious injury. When a defendant’s motion is sufficient to raise the issue of whether a serious injury has been sustained, the burden shifts and it is then incumbent upon the plaintiff to produce prima facie evidence in admissible form to support the claim of serious injury. This was the Westchester court’s ruling in the cases of Licari v. Elliot and Lopez v. Senatore, in 1985. In support of a claim that plaintiff has not sustained a serious injury, a defendant may rely either on the sworn statements of the defendant’s examining physician or the unsworn reports of plaintiff’s examining physician. Once the burden shifts, it is incumbent upon plaintiff, in opposition to defendant’s motion, to submit proof of serious injury in admissible form. Unsworn reports of plaintiff’s examining doctor or chiropractor will not be sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Thus, a medical affirmation or affidavit which is based on a physician’s personal examination and observations of plaintiff is an acceptable method to provide a doctor’s opinion regarding the existence and extent of a plaintiff’s serious injury. As held in the cases of Gonzalez v. Vasquez in 2003 and Ayzen v. Melendez in 2002, unsworn MRI reports are not competent evidence unless both sides rely on those reports. However, in order to be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of serious physical injury, the affirmation or affidavit must contain medical findings, which are based on the physician’s own examination, tests and observations and review of the record rather than manifesting only the plaintiff’s subjective complaints. It must be noted that a chiropractor is not one of the persons authorized by the CPLR to provide a statement by affirmation, and thus, for a chiropractor, only an affidavit containing the requisite findings will suffice; as ruled in the cases of Pichardo v. Blum in 1999 and Feintuch v. Grella in 2003. In any event, the findings, which must be submitted in a competent statement under oath, or affirmation, when permitted, must demonstrate that plaintiff sustained at least one of the categories of serious injury as enumerated in Insurance Law. For example, in the case of Parker v. DeFontaine, it was held that a medical affidavit, which demonstrated that the plaintiff’s threshold motion limitations were objectively measured and observed by the physician, was sufficient to establish that plaintiff has suffered a serious injury within the meaning of that term as set forth in Article 51 of the Insurance Law. In other words, a physician’s observation as to actual limitations qualifies as objective evidence since it is based on the physician’s own examinations. Besides, in the absence of objective medical evidence in admissible form of serious injury, plaintiff’s self-serving affidavit is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

Continue reading

Published on:

This action arises out of an automobile accident. It is alleged that at the time of the accident, the complainant man was the driver of a motor vehicle in which the complainant women were passengers; and that the complainants’ vehicle was rear-ended by the defendants’ vehicle.

Under the no-fault law, in order to maintain an action for personal injury, a complainant must establish that a serious injury has been sustained. The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must tender sufficient evidence to show the absence of any material issue of fact and the right to judgment as a matter of law. In the present action, the burden rests on the defendants to establish, by the submission of evidentiary proof in admissible form, that the complainant man has not suffered a serious injury. When a defendant’s motion is sufficient to raise the issue of whether a serious injury has been sustained, the burden shifts and it is then incumbent upon the complainant to produce legitimate evidence in admissible form to support the claim of serious injury.

In support of a claim that the Westchester complainant has not sustained a serious injury, a defendant may rely either on the sworn statements of the defendant’s examining physician or the unsworn reports of the complainant’s examining physician. Once the burden shifts, it is incumbent upon the complainant, in opposition to defendant’s motion, to submit proof of serious injury in admissible form. Unsworn reports of the complainant’s examining doctor or chiropractor will not be sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Thus, a medical affirmation or affidavit which is based on a physician’s personal examination and observations of the complainant is an acceptable method to provide a doctor’s opinion regarding the existence and extent of a complainant’s serious injury. Unsworn MRI reports are not competent evidence unless both sides rely on those reports. However, in order to be sufficient to establish a legitimate case of serious physical injury the affirmation or affidavit must contain medical findings, which are based on the physician’s own examination, tests and observations and review of the record rather than manifesting only the complainant’s subjective complaints. It must be noted that a chiropractor is not one of the persons authorized by the Civil Practice Law and Rules to provide a statement by affirmation, and thus, for a chiropractor, only an affidavit containing the requisite findings will suffice.

Continue reading

Published on:

Two construction and repair crewmen from the water district were riding in the car of a co-worker on their way to work when their car was hit in the rear end by a truck driven by an employee of an iron works company.

Both the Bronx crewmen were injured. The other crewman, the one sitting in the back sustained spinal injury from the force of the impact of the collision. His spinal injury consisted of bulging discs in the cervical spine and in the lumbar spine. Because of these injuries, he suffered painful muscle spasms, migraine headaches and numbness in the right arm and shoulder. He was treated in the hospital and was confined to bed for six weeks following the accident. After the confinement, the crewman could not return to his regular job as repair crewman because he could not lift materials. He had difficulty bending down and he could not sit or stand for long periods of time.

Both the crewmen filed a suit in damages against the two drivers of the motor vehicles involved in the car accident. They both claimed compensation for damages under the Insurance Law for the spinal injuries and fractures they sustained as a result of the accident. The driver from the iron works company filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the injuries sustained by the crewmen were not serious injuries and so they are not compensable injuries. The L.I. crewman was examined by independent physicians but the physicians examined the crewmen two years after the accident.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident on June 24, 2006 at approximately 8:45 a.m. The accident occurred at Hill Avenue at its intersection with Hempstead Turnpike, Hempstead, New York. Plaintiff alleges that he was stopped at a red light when the vehicle owned and operated by defendant rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle. The police accident report states that “motor vehicle #1 in collision with motor vehicle #2.”

In his bill of particulars, a source said that plaintiff alleges that he sustained the following injuries: subligamentous central posterior disc herniation at C4-5, subligamentous central posterior disc hernation at C5-6, impinging on the anterior aspect of the spinal canal posterior lumbar herniation at L4-5, and straightening of the lumbar curvature.

A Lawyer said that, defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d). In support thereof, defendant relies uponplaintiff’s deposition testimony and an affirmed medical report of the doctor. At his examination-before-trial, plaintiff testified to his inability to perform activities due to his injuries sustained in the accident. Specifically, The Bronx plaintiff was physically restricted and not able to swim, mountain bike and exercise.

Continue reading

Published on:

This action was commenced to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained by a man as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about October 20, 2004. On that date, the Bronx complainant man was riding his bicycle when a taxi cab owned and operated by the accused allegedly hit the rear tire of the complainant man’s bicycle.

The driver and the Brooklyn taxi company have moved for summary judgment, arguing that the accused man has not met the serious injury threshold as set forth in Insurance Law. In support thereof, the accused driver and taxi company have submitted, among other things, an affirmation of the counsel, the complainant man’s verified bill of particulars, the complainant’s deposition testimony, a report from a radiologist who reviewed an MRI examination of the man, and a report from a neurologist who conducted an independent medical examination of the complainant man.

The complainant man served a verified bill of particulars which alleged that he suffered numerous personal injuries as a result of the. The spine injury claimed by the man was to be of a permanent nature.

Continue reading

Published on:

This action was commenced by a man to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. He alleges that he sustained neck and back injury when the vehicle he was driving, which was stopped for a red light, was struck in the rear by a vehicle driven by a woman. More specifically, the man alleges in his bill of particulars that he suffered spinal injuries as a result of the subject accident. At a deposition conducted, he testified that he is employed as a laborer for a Bronx construction company, and that he missed 11 days of work due to his spine injuries.

The opponent woman moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the man is precluded by Insurance Law from recovering for non-economic loss, as he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law. The woman’s submissions in support of the motion include copies of the pleadings; a transcript of the man’s deposition testimony; medical reports prepared by the complainant man’s treating chiropractor, and his treating neurologist; and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports regarding the man’s cervical and lumbar regions prepared in February 2005. Also submitted by the woman in support of the motion is a sworn medical report prepared by the orthopedic surgeon. At the woman’s request, the orthopedic surgeon conducted an examination of the man on June 28, 2006, and reviewed various medical records related to the man’s alleged spinal injuries.

The orthopedic surgeon’s report states that the man presented with complaints of chronic neck and back pain, as well as an occasional limp. The report states, in relevant part, that the man exhibited full range of motion in his cervical and lumbar regions, with no palpable muscle spasm or tightness, during the physical examination. It states that the man stood erect, with no evidence of asymmetry, and that he moved easily during the examination. The report also states that the man demonstrated full range of motion in his upper and lower extremities; that there was no evidence of muscle atrophy or compression neuropathy; and that there was no evidence of any motor or neurological dysfunction. The orthopedic surgeon opines that the man suffered cervical and spine injuries as a result of the accident, and that both conditions have resolved. He further concludes that there was no evidence that the man suffers from any ongoing orthopedic dysfunction or disability.

Continue reading

Published on:

On March 12 of 2010, a school security guard was struck by the car of one of the parents while attempting to assist her with a traffic issue. He approached her car as she sat in the traffic line to drop off her child. After she pulled in, a school bus pulled in behind her. Her vehicle was blocked. The Westchester security guard approached her vehicle from the front. As he passed in front of her car, she inexplicably drove forward striking the security guard. He incurred a personal injury that resulted in a lawsuit against the woman and her insurance company, but also the owner of the car and their insurance company.

The car was owned by a vehicle leasing company. They had an internal policy against leasing cars to people with revoked or suspended driver’s licenses. Upon investigation, the security guard had discovered that the car had been leased by the woman’s boyfriend who had a restricted driver’s license. The security guard maintains that the company employee violated policy when he leased the car to the man. The man’s driving record clearly indicating that he was not a safe driver as per the standards set by the leasing company itself. The security guard believes that if the leasing company had not leased the car to the man in violation of their own internal policy, he could not have loaned it to his girlfriend, and she would not have hit him with it causing his injury.

The security guard maintains that he was injured so severely as to have to miss several days of work and suffering from injuries so severe that they have altered his lifestyle. He stated that he had a spine injury, head injury, hip and knee injuries that required surgery. He stated that he is no longer able to play ball with his grandchildren or to maintain a normal lifestyle.

Continue reading

Published on:

A case against the State of New York was filed by the administrators of Tonya M. Hilliker’s estate. The claim was that two New York State troopers acted with “reckless disregard” in pursuing another vehicle. They allege that Ms. Hilliker of The Bronx died because of that recklessness. The car that they were chasing hit other vehicles. This happened on April 19, 2003 at approximately 2:30 A.M. in the City of Glens Falls.

In the evidence presented, it showed that Trooper Matthew Gilbert of Westchester was being closely followed by a white car. In the vehicle with him was Trooper Kevin Bouyea, who was sitting in the front passenger seat. The white car turned left from Main Street to South Western Avenue. The troopers continued to travel the main street and turned left onto Luzerne Road to see why the other vehicle was following them. A Lawyer mentioned that it was the time that the troopers noticed the white car heading straight toward them. It was going the opposite way on a one-way street. Trooper Gilbert avoided getting hit by pulling the patrol car on the side of the road. The white car passed them. In pursuit of the other vehicle, Trooper Gilbert made a U-turn and activated their emergency lights. The white car did not immediately turn on Broad Street. What the troopers did was to activate their siren. There was no evidence of traffic on Broad Street at the time of pursuit.

While on Broad Street, the speed of the white car was at 80-85 miles per hour, and the troopers were at 70 miles per hour when they were trying to get the plate numbers. They said that they slowed to about 50 miles per hour after getting the license plate as they were concerned about the safety if they continued that kind of chase. They lost sight of the vehicle for a few seconds after it turned at South Street. When they saw it again it was going into a bouncing stop. They exited their vehicle with guns drawn, said a Lawyer. At the scene Timothy Culligan said he was talking to Ms. Hilliker and Walter LaBarge. He was inside his car while the two were standing outside. This was when his car was struck by the white car. In the reconstruct, it was determined that the white vehicle was driving at least 82 miles per hour. For all the witnesses, they said that after the crash the police officers were immediately there about 10 feet away from the white car. This is contrary to the evidence of the lack of contact from the trooper’s vehicle, and that lack of skid marks made by the trooper’s car. Although, when the statement of Trooper Gilbert and Trooper Bouyea were compared there was a difference. A reporter got information that, Trooper Bouyea said he saw the white car hit other vehicles, which meant that they would have been near enough. There is also the undeniable knowledge of both troopers knew at that time, there are a lot of people in that area.

Continue reading

Published on:

This case involves a ruling of the Court wherein the motion to suppress the blood test of the defendant on the ground that the court order and supporting affidavit are defective was denied.

A car accident occurred in Bayvile Avenue in the Incorporated Village of Bayville between two vehicles. The responding officer, who arrived at 2:22 A.M., noticed that the defendant was the driver of the overturned car and had some facial lacerations in the vicinity of the forehead and one of his cheeks. The other car was a red car who sustained severe damages in the front and passenger side which led to the wrongful death of one of the passengers. Drivers of both passengers were transported to the community hospital. Police officer arrived at 2:55 A.M. Upon inquiry, defendant said to the Police Officer that he was originally heading westbound on Bayville Avenue.” The Police Officer then asked the defendant, “are you sure you were westbound or eastbound?” and “were you headed toward your parents’ house or away from it?” The defendant “finally said that he was heading towards his parents’ house which was eastbound”.

While talking with the Brooklyn defendant, the Police Officer noticed an odor of alcoholic beverages on defendant’s breath. He described the odor as moderate level which wasn’t overly strong but it was noticeable even the officer was two feet away during the conversation. The Police Officer told the defendant that he is being placed under arrest for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. At 3:50 A.m., the Police Officer asked the defendant to submit himself to a chemical analysis of his breath. The defendant consulted his lawyer and thereafter refused to take the test. Following the refusal, which was about 4:20 A.M., efforts were made to get a court order. At approximately 5:30 A.M., a court order had been obtained and blood was taken from the defendant at 5:50 A.M.

Continue reading

Contact Information