| Umar v Ohrnberger |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09577 [46 AD3d 543] |
| December 4, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Bibi Umar, Appellant, v June Ohrnberger, Respondent, etal., Defendant. |
—[*1] Russo & Apoznanski, Westbury, N.Y. (Susan J. Mitola of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated June21, 2006, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant June Ohrnberger which was forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her on the ground thatthe plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thatbranch of the motion of the defendant June Ohrnberger which was for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her is denied.
The defendant June Ohrnberger failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff didnot sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), since theaffirmed report of her examining neurologist disclosed that he found a 50% limitation in theplaintiff's range of motion in her lumbar spine (see Strong v ADF Constr. Corp., 41 AD3d 1209 [2007]; Scudera v Mahbubur, 39 AD3d620, 621 [2007]), and her examining orthopedist failed to compare his findings as to therange of motion of the plaintiff's cervical and lumbar spines with normal ranges of motion (see Sullivan v Dawes, 28 AD3d472 [2006]; see also Caracci vMiller, 34 AD3d 515 [2006]). Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider thesufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Lameni v Verizon, 34 AD3d 535 [2006]; Mariaca-Olmos vMizrhy, 226 AD2d 437, 438 [1996]). Goldstein, J.P., Skelos, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ.,concur.