Cespedes v. McNamee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cespedes v. McNamee

308 A.D.2d 409, 764 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9924

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 409 (Cespedes v. McNamee) 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

Cespedes v. McNamee, 308 A.D.2d 409, 764 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne Renwick, J.), entered November 12, 2002, which granted plaintiffs motion to renew a prior order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and, upon renewal, denied the motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[410]*410The IAS court originally granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the physician’s report that plaintiff submitted in opposition was neither sworn nor affirmed pursuant to CPLR 2106. Immediately after learning of the court’s decision, plaintiff moved to renew and reargue, submitting his doctor’s findings in affidavit form, and explaining, through his attorney and doctor, that neither realized the report was unsworn until after receiving the IAS court’s order. The IAS court properly granted plaintiff’s motion, which, contrary to its designation, was one to renew, not reargue, since it was based on newly submitted evidence (see Telep v Republic El. Corp., 267 AD2d 57 [1999]). Renewal may be granted where the failure to submit a doctor’s report in affidavit form “ ‘was inadvertent, and * * * absen[t] * * * any showing by defendants of prejudice attributable to the short delay caused by such failure’” (Ramos v Dekhtyar, 301 AD2d 428, 429 [2003]; see also Segall v Heyer, 161 AD2d 471 [1990]). Defendants show no prejudice. On the merits, an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury is raised by his doctor’s affidavit correlating significant quantified range of motion limitations in plaintiffs lower back, among other conditions, including lumbar muscle spasms, to a herniated disc revealed in an MRI taken shortly after the accident, and opining that the disability to plaintiffs back is permanent (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350, 352-353 [2002]; Gonzalez v Vasquez, 301 AD2d 438 [2003]; Aguilar v N.Y.C. Water Works, 298 AD2d 245 [2002]). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne Renwick, J.), entered November 12, 2002, which granted plaintiffs motion to renew a prior order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and, upon renewal, denied the motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[410]*410The IAS court originally granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the physician’s report that plaintiff submitted in opposition was neither sworn nor affirmed pursuant to CPLR 2106. Immediately after learning of the court’s decision, plaintiff moved to renew and reargue, submitting his doctor’s findings in affidavit form, and explaining, through his attorney and doctor, that neither realized the report was unsworn until after receiving the IAS court’s order. The IAS court properly granted plaintiff’s motion, which, contrary to its designation, was one to renew, not reargue, since it was based on newly submitted evidence (see Telep v Republic El. Corp., 267 AD2d 57 [1999]). Renewal may be granted where the failure to submit a doctor’s report in affidavit form “ ‘was inadvertent, and * * * absen[t] * * * any showing by defendants of prejudice attributable to the short delay caused by such failure’” (Ramos v Dekhtyar, 301 AD2d 428, 429 [2003]; see also Segall v Heyer, 161 AD2d 471 [1990]). Defendants show no prejudice. On the merits, an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury is raised by his doctor’s affidavit correlating significant quantified range of motion limitations in plaintiffs lower back, among other conditions, including lumbar muscle spasms, to a herniated disc revealed in an MRI taken shortly after the accident, and opining that the disability to plaintiffs back is permanent (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350, 352-353 [2002]; Gonzalez v Vasquez, 301 AD2d 438 [2003]; Aguilar v N.Y.C. Water Works, 298 AD2d 245 [2002]). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 409, 764 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cespedes-v-mcnamee-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack