Mondert v Iglesia De Dios Pentecostal Cristo Viene, Inc.
2010 NY Slip Op 00118 [69 AD3d 590]
January 5, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 10, 2010


Evelyne Mondert, Respondent,
v
Iglesia De DiosPentecostal Cristo Viene, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[*1]Nicolini, Paradise, Ferretti & Sabella, PLLC, Mineola, N.Y. (Barbara L. Hall ofcounsel), for appellant.

Paul G. Vesnaver (Victor A. Carr, Mineola, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Iglesia De DiosPenetecostal Cristo Viene, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Schneier, J.), dated January 24, 2008, which denied its motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff did notsustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant failed to meet its prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did notsustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of thesubject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy vEyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In support of its motion, the appellant relied on, interalia, the affirmed medical report of its examining neurologist. In that report, he noted that theplaintiff had a significant limitation in her lumbar spine range of motion, and concluded that thedecreased range of motion was "voluntary." However, he failed to explain or substantiate, withobjective medical evidence, the basis for his conclusion that the limitation was voluntary (see Hi Ock Park-Lee v Voleriaperia,67 AD3d 734 [2009]; Cuevas vCompote Cab Corp., 61 AD3d 812 [2009]; Colon v Chuen Sum Chu, 61 AD3d 805 [2009]; Torres v Garcia, 59 AD3d 705[2009]; Busljeta v Plandome Leasing,Inc., 57 AD3d 469 [2008]).

Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matterof law, it is unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiff's opposition papers were sufficient toraise a triable issue of fact (see Hi OckPark-Lee v Voleriaperia, 67 AD3d 734 [2009]; Cuevas v Compote Cab Corp., 61 AD3d 812 [2009]). Fisher, J.P.,Santucci, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.


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.