Amezquita v. Peguero
This text of Amezquita v. Peguero (Amezquita v. Peguero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Amezquita v Peguero
2026 NY Slip Op 04137
June 30, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Lenique M. Amezquita, Appellant,
v
Jose A. Peguero et al., Respondents.
Decided and Entered: June 30, 2026
Index No. 31306/19|Appeal No. 6980|Case No. 2025-06860|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Moulton, Shulman, Rosado, O'neill Levy, JJ.
Harmon, Linder & Rogowsky, New York (Mark J. Linder of counsel), for appellant.
Marjorie E. Bornes, Freeport, for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered on or about September 18, 2025, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the failure to establish a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff does not dispute that defendants met their prima facie burden for entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, plaintiff failed to submit medical evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether her spinal injuries were caused by the accident. The unaffirmed medical records annexed to plaintiff's pain management specialist's affirmation are inadmissible and cannot not be bootstrapped into evidence through an affirmed report (see Rodriguez v Santos, 235 AD3d 564, 565 [1st Dept 2025]). As to plaintiff's admissible evidence, her osteopath's report fails to raise an issue of fact as to causation because it is based on an examination of plaintiff that occurred nearly five years after the accident (see Ledesma v Rodriguez, 217 AD3d 453, 453 [1st Dept 2023]). Although plaintiff's pain management specialist's affirmation was based on a contemporaneous examination, it failed to address evidence of preexisting degenerative conditions in plaintiff's 0wn unaffirmed records or explain why these conditions could not have been the cause of her condition (see Sooknanan v Pinales, 215 AD3d 608, 609 [1st Dept 2023]). The specialist's bare statement that plaintiff's injuries were causally related to the accident was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to causation (see Diakite v PSAJA Corp., 173 AD3d 535, 536 [1st Dept 2019]; Alvarez v NYLL Mgt. Ltd., 120 AD3d 1043, 1044 [1st Dept 2014], affd 24 NY3d 1191 [2015]).
In light of our determination, we need not address whether plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to the extent and permanency of her injuries.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: June 30, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Amezquita v. Peguero, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amezquita-v-peguero-nyappdiv-2026.