Yagi v Corbin
2007 NY Slip Op 07749 [44 AD3d 440]
October 16, 2007
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 12, 2007


Shuji Yagi, Appellant,
v
Thor Corbin et al.,Respondents.

[*1]Friedman, Khafif & Sanchez, LLP, Brooklyn (Albert Khafif of counsel), for appellant.

Fiedelman & McGaw, Jericho (Dawn C. DeSimone of counsel), for Thor Corbin and RafaelVasquez, respondents.

Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York City (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel),for Muhammed Rashid and Harry Kleidermacher, respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered May 17, 2006,which granted defendants' motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affirmed medical report of defendants' orthopedist, detailing the objective testsperformed, finding that plaintiff had full range of motion in his cervical and lumbar spine, andconcluding that he had recovered from the sprain- and strain-type injuries to his cervical, thoracicand lumbar spine suffered as a result of the accident, satisfied their burden of establishing primafacie that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956[1992]). The burden then shifted to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact that a serious injurywas sustained within the meaning of the Insurance Law (see Thompson v Abbasi, 15 AD3d 95, 97 [2005]).

Plaintiff failed to meet that burden because his expert's report, dated nearly three years afterhis last treatment of plaintiff, does not satisfactorily explain why plaintiff terminated treatment.Therefore, notwithstanding the objective medical proof offered by plaintiff, "when additionalcontributory factors interrupt the chain of causation . . .—such as a gap intreatment . . . or a preexisting condition—summary dismissal of thecomplaint may be appropriate" (seePommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 572 [2005]). Not only was there an unexplained gap intreatment of nearly three years, but plaintiff also had a preexisting shoulder injury, which was notsufficiently addressed.[*2]

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions andfind them without merit. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Marlow, Buckley andCatterson, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.