Castillo v. Cinquina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Castillo v. Cinquina

85 A.D.3d 660, 925 N.Y.S.2d 825

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 28, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 85 A.D.3d 660 (Castillo v. Cinquina) 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.

Bluebook

Castillo v. Cinquina, 85 A.D.3d 660, 925 N.Y.S.2d 825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about July 7, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the failure to establish a “permanent consequential limitation” or “significant limitation” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judg[661]*661ment as a matter of law. Defendant submitted the affirmed report of an orthopedic surgeon who, after conducting an independent examination of plaintiff, found that she had full range of motion in her neck and back and concluded that her injuries were resolved (see Dennis v New York City Tr. Auth., 84 AD3d 579 [2011]).

In opposition, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit of her treating chiropractor who, based on testing performed both recently and contemporaneous with plaintiffs accident, found diminished range of motion in the cervical and lumbar spine and concluded that such limitations were caused by the accident (see id.). The chiropractor’s opinion was supported by objective medical evidence, namely, MRI reports indicating that plaintiff had bulging discs in the cervical and lumbar spine (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 353 [2002]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about July 7, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the failure to establish a “permanent consequential limitation” or “significant limitation” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judg[661]*661ment as a matter of law. Defendant submitted the affirmed report of an orthopedic surgeon who, after conducting an independent examination of plaintiff, found that she had full range of motion in her neck and back and concluded that her injuries were resolved (see Dennis v New York City Tr. Auth., 84 AD3d 579 [2011]).

In opposition, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit of her treating chiropractor who, based on testing performed both recently and contemporaneous with plaintiffs accident, found diminished range of motion in the cervical and lumbar spine and concluded that such limitations were caused by the accident (see id.). The chiropractor’s opinion was supported by objective medical evidence, namely, MRI reports indicating that plaintiff had bulging discs in the cervical and lumbar spine (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 353 [2002]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.3d 660, 925 N.Y.S.2d 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castillo-v-cinquina-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack