| Johnson v Paulino |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02209 [49 AD3d 379] |
| March 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Nora Johnson et al., Respondents, v Evergistro Paulino etal., Appellants. |
—[*1] The Arce Law Office, PLLC, Bronx (Yolanda Castro-Arce of counsel), forrespondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered on or about October 11,2007, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs did not suffer a "significant limitation ofuse of a body function or system," unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and themotion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing thecomplaint.
Defendants established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting theaffirmed reports of a neurologist and an orthopedist, who reviewed plaintiffs' medical records,examined plaintiffs and performed detailed and objective tests before concluding that plaintiffshad full range of motion in their cervical and lumbar spines and left shoulders, and that plaintiffNora Johnson had full range of motion in her left knee, and plaintiff Sylvester Johnson had fullrange of motion in his left elbow. The physicians also concluded that plaintiffs had recoveredfrom the sprain- and strain-type injuries suffered as a result of the motor vehicle accident (see Thompson v Abbasi, 15 AD3d95, 96 [2005]).
In opposition, Nora failed to submit evidence demonstrating limited ranges of motion in herleft shoulder and knee based upon objective medical findings that were made within a reasonabletime after the accident (see Lloyd vGreen, 45 AD3d 373 [2007]), and her examining physician failed to adequately explainthe basis for his conclusion that Nora's injuries were caused by the subject accident, as opposedto degenerative disease evidenced in the record (see Montgomery v Pena, 19 AD3d 288 [2005]). RegardingSylvester, while his examining physician's report attempted to set forth range of motion findingswith respect to Sylvester's spine and shoulder, it did not compare those findings to the standardsfor normal ranges of motion (seeVasquez v Reluzco, 28 AD3d 365 [2006]).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.Concur—Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.