Johnson v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Singh

82 A.D.3d 565, 918 N.Y.2d 483

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 565 (Johnson v. Singh) 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

Johnson v. Singh, 82 A.D.3d 565, 918 N.Y.2d 483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendants met their burden of establishing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Defendants’ orthopedist and radiologist concluded that plaintiffs injuries were preexisting and were not caused by the accident. Their conclusions regarding causation were supported by objective medical proof, namely MRIs and surgical reports indicating that plaintiff had degenerative conditions in her knees (compare Torres v Knight, 63 AD3d 450 [2009], with Rodriguez v Abdallah, 51 AD3d 590 [2008]).

Plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact as to her alleged injuries. Her treating physician failed to address the findings of degenerative change by defendants’ radi[566]*566ologist and provided no support for his conclusion that plaintiffs arthritis was exacerbated by the accident (see Depena v Sylla, 63 AD3d 504, 505 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 706 [2009]).

Plaintiff has also failed to raise an issue of fact concerning her inability to perform substantially all of her routine activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days following the accident. Plaintiff testified that she was confined to bed for only a week after the accident, and there is no competent medical evidence that she was unable to perform her usual and customary activities for the relevant time period (see Lopez v American United Transp., Inc., 66 AD3d 407 [2009]). Concur — Andrias, J.P, Saxe, Friedman, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

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

Defendants met their burden of establishing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Defendants’ orthopedist and radiologist concluded that plaintiffs injuries were preexisting and were not caused by the accident. Their conclusions regarding causation were supported by objective medical proof, namely MRIs and surgical reports indicating that plaintiff had degenerative conditions in her knees (compare Torres v Knight, 63 AD3d 450 [2009], with Rodriguez v Abdallah, 51 AD3d 590 [2008]).

Plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact as to her alleged injuries. Her treating physician failed to address the findings of degenerative change by defendants’ radi[566]*566ologist and provided no support for his conclusion that plaintiffs arthritis was exacerbated by the accident (see Depena v Sylla, 63 AD3d 504, 505 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 706 [2009]).

Plaintiff has also failed to raise an issue of fact concerning her inability to perform substantially all of her routine activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days following the accident. Plaintiff testified that she was confined to bed for only a week after the accident, and there is no competent medical evidence that she was unable to perform her usual and customary activities for the relevant time period (see Lopez v American United Transp., Inc., 66 AD3d 407 [2009]). Concur — Andrias, J.P, Saxe, Friedman, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 565, 918 N.Y.2d 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-singh-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack