June v. Kandel

2025 NY Slip Op 32020(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedJune 5, 2025
DocketIndex No. 162374/2019
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 32020(U) (June v. Kandel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
June v. Kandel, 2025 NY Slip Op 32020(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2025).

Opinion

June v Kandel 2025 NY Slip Op 32020(U) June 5, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 162374/2019 Judge: James G. Clynes Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 162374/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. JAMES G. CLYNES PART 22 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 162374/2019 JOYCE JUNE, MOTION DATE 06/03/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 - V -

KAMAL KANDEL, LUX CREDIT CONSULTANTS, L YFT INC, OLUBUNMI A. JEGEDE, TOLUWANIMI TEMITOPE DECISION+ ORDER ON JEGEDE MOTION

Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109,110,111,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT- SUMMARY

Upon the foregoing documents, the motion by Defendants Jegede for summary judgment

on the grounds that Plaintiff has not sustained a serious injury under Insurance Law 5102 (d) is

decided as follows:

Plaintiff seeks recovery for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of an August 11, 2019

motor vehicle accident between a vehicle owned by Defendant Olubunmi A. Jegede and operated

by Defendant Toluwanimi Temetope Jegede and a vehicle owned by Defendant Lux Credit

Consultants and operated by Defendant Kamal Kandel, within which Plaintiff was a passenger.

Plaintiff alleges in her Bill of Particulars that she suffered injuries to her cervical spine, lumbar

spine, and left shoulder that fall into the serious injury categories set forth in Insurance Law 5102

(d), and that as a result of these injuries, she was confined to the hospital for one day.

In support of their motion, Defendants submit a certified copy of the FDNY EMS-

Prehospital Care Report, excerpts from the testimony of Plaintiff, the independent medical exam

report by Dr. Jaylan R. Parikh, and the radiological review by Dr. Jeffrey Warhit.

162374/2019 JUNE, JOYCE vs. KANDEL, KAMAL Page I of6 Motion No. 004

1 of 6 [* 1] INDEX NO. 162374/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2025

Defendants contend that the EMS report indicates that Plaintiffs physical exam was

normal with no focal neurological deficits with a final assessment of likely whiplash, and because

of complaints of head and neck pain, a CT scan of the head/neck was performed and the impression

was: "[n]o acute intracranial or cervical spine injury."

In the excerpts provided, Plaintiff testified that her doctors did not tell her not to ride her

bike or do Pilates. She further testified that she works as a dentist with work hours from 9 am to

5 pm and is on her feet for more than 50% of the day.

Dr. Parikh, orthopedic surgeon, performed an independent orthopedic exam on Plaintiff on

September 15, 2023. Dr. Parik measured Plaintiffs range of motion with a goniometer and

compared his findings to normal values in accordance with both the NYS WC Guidelines and

AMA Guidelines. Dr. Parikh reported normal range of motion as to Plaintiffs cervical spine,

thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and right shoulder. Dr. Parikh concluded that Plaintiffs diagnoses

of cervical spine sprain, thoracic spine sprain, and lumbar spine sprain were all resolved, and that

Plaintiff is capable of performing all the tasks of daily living and maintaining full employment

with no restrictions.

Dr. Warhit reviewed the MRis of Plaintiffs lumbar spine, cervical spine, and left shoulder.

Dr. Warhit reported degenerative changes throughout Plaintiffs lumbar spine and cervical spine.

As to Plaintiffs lumbar spine, Dr. Warhit reported visualized lower thoracic spine with

intervertebral disc space narrowing, anterior and posterior osteophyte formation and desiccation

of the discs. He further noted that in view of these changes, the disc bulges at the Ll-L2 and L3-

L5 levels and disc herniation at the L5-S 1 level appear degenerative. Dr. Warhit also reported no

evidence of a traumatic injury to the lumbar spine. As to Plaintiffs cervical spine, he reported

intervertebral disc space narrowing, anterior and posterior osteophyte formation and desiccation

162374/2019 JUNE, JOYCE vs. KANDEL, KAMAL Page 2 of6 Motion No. 004

2 of 6 [* 2] INDEX NO. 162374/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2025

of the discs. He also noted that in view of the associated degenerative changes, the disc bulging

at the C3-C5 levels and the disc herniation at the C5-C6 level appear degenerative. Finally, he

noted no evidence of a traumatic injury to the cervical spine. As to Plaintiffs left shoulder MRI

review, Dr. Warhit reported no fracture, ligarnentous, tendinous or full-thickness labral tears,

Plaintiffs biceps tenosynovitis was without evidence of a traumatic etiology, and there was no

evidence of a traumatic injury to the left shoulder.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that there are multiple triable issues of fact that preclude

the granting of summary judgment. Plaintiff contends that the medical documentation submitted

demonstrates that there are conflicting conclusions between the medical experts' findings

regarding: 1) the existence of a "loss in range of motion"; and 2) the parameters that should be

used to determine what constitutes a "normal" range of motion. Plaintiff relies on, in pertinent

part, the police accident report which identifies the parties, the examination before trial testimony

of Plaintiff, physical therapy records by Christian Olivares PT, the certified medical records from

Sanford Family Chiropractic, P.C., certified records by Dr. Jinghui Xie of Integrated Pain

Management, the certified records by Dr. Hank Ross, and a report by Dr. Mark S. McMahon.

Plaintiff testified that as a result of the subject accident, she can no longer cycle, bicycle,

take spin classes, weightlift, or run. She further testified that she has trouble performing

extractions at work because she would have to twist her back.

The physical therapy records signed by Christian Olivares, PT, show that Plaintiff

underwent physical therapy treatment beginning on August 11, 2019, and had sessions multiple

days a week for about two months.

162374/2019 JUNE, JOYCE vs. KANDEL, KAMAL Page3 of6 Motion No. 004

3 of 6 [* 3] INDEX NO. 162374/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2025

The records from Sanford Family Chiropractic, P.C. show that Plaintiff was initially

examined on August 14, 2019, and continued treating there several times a week until October 8,

2019.

Dr. Xie performed a trigger point injection at Plaintiffs left trapezius muscle on October

16, 2019.

Dr. Ross reviewed Plaintiffs MRI evaluation results with her and reported that the MRI of

Plaintiffs left shoulder showed a focal tear posterior glenoid labrum, biceps tenosynovitis, and

subacromial bursitis.

Dr. McMahon measured Plaintiffs range of motion with a goniometer and reported

limitations and positive orthopedic tests. Specifically, Dr. McMahon reported a five-degree

limitation to her left shoulder elevation and positive Hawkin and Neer signs. As to her cervical

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

Related

Fathi v. Sodhi
2017 NY Slip Op 75 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Elias v. Mahlah
58 A.D.3d 434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 32020(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/june-v-kandel-nysupctnewyork-2025.