Tuberman v Hall
2009 NY Slip Op 02674 [61 AD3d 441]
April 7, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 10, 2009


Steven Tuberman, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff,
v
Andrea A.Hall et al., Respondents.

[*1]Taubman Kimelman & Soroka, LLP, New York (Antonette M. Milcetic of counsel), forappellant.

Armienti, DeBellis, Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York (Vanessa Corchia of counsel),for Andrea A. and Trevor A. Hall, respondents.

Fiedelman & McGaw, Jericho (James K. O'Sullivan of counsel), for Gregory Blackwell,respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered December 10, 2007,which, to the extent appealed from, dismissed plaintiff-appellant Steven Tuberman's complaint,alleging "serious injury" under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, withoutcosts.

The motion court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint as against the Hall defendants. TheHall defendants satisfied their prima facie burden of establishing that plaintiff did not sustain astatutorily-defined serious injury under Insurance Law§ 5102 (d) (see Shinn vCatanzaro, 1 AD3d 195, 197 [2003]). The reports of the Hall defendants' expertorthopedist, Dr. Freeman, and expert neurologist, Dr. Schwartz, which showed that plaintiff hadonly minor limitations in the range of motion of his right knee, lumbar spine, and shoulders,established that plaintiff's injuries did not amount to a "significant" or "permanent" limitation ofuse of those body parts as a matter of law (see Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 236 [1982];see e.g. Santos v Taveras, 55 AD3d405, 405 [2008]). Moreover, the reports of the Hall defendants' expert radiologist, Dr.Tantleff, stated that any abnormalities revealed by the MRIs of plaintiff's cervical spine, lumbarspine, and right knee were degenerative in nature and not caused by the subject accident.

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to proffer quantitative or qualitative evidence inadmissible form raising an issue of fact that he did sustain a "serious injury" (see Toure vAvis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Acosta and DeGrasse, 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.