| Leopold v New York City Tr. Auth. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03290 [72 AD3d 906] |
| April 20, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Marie Leopold, Appellant, v New York City TransitAuthority et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Wallace D. Gossett (Steve S. Efron, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated January 14, 2009, which granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she didnot sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants' motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain aserious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is denied, and a subsequentorder of the same court dated August 12, 2009, made upon renewal, is vacated.
The defendants failed to meet their 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 their motion, the defendants reliedupon, inter alia, the affirmed medical report of Barbara Joyce Freeman, their examiningorthopedic surgeon. In that report, Dr. Freeman noted significant limitations in the range ofmotion within the region of the plaintiff's lumbar spine (see Catalan v G and A Processing, Inc., 71 AD3d 1071 [2010]; Croyle v Monroe Woodbury Cent. SchoolDist., 71 AD3d 944 [2010]; Kjono v Fenning, 69 AD3d 581 [2010]; Held v Heideman, 63 AD3d 1105[2009]; Torres v Garcia, 59 AD3d705 [2009]; Bagot v Singh, 59AD3d 368 [2009]; Hurtte v BudgetRoadside Care, 54 AD3d 362 [2008]; Jenkins v Miled Hacking Corp., 43 AD3d 393 [2007]; Bentivegna v Stein, 42 AD3d 555,556 [2007]; Zamaniyan v Vrabeck,41 AD3d 472, 473 [2007]). Furthermore, while Dr. Freeman set forth findings in the reportconcerning the range of motion in the plaintiff's right knee, she failed to compare those findingsto what was normal (see Chiara vDernago, 70 AD3d 746 [2010]; Page v Belmonte, 45 AD3d 825 [2007]; Malave v Basikov, 45 AD3d 539[2007]; Fleury v Benitez, 44 AD3d996 [2007]; Nociforo v Penna,42 AD3d 514 [2007]). The extent of the limitation in the range of motion of the plaintiff'sright knee indicated in the report cannot be ascertained given the fact that Dr. Freeman failed tocompare any of those findings to what was normal (see Gaccione v Krebs, 53 AD3d 524 [2008]; Iles v Jonat, 35 AD3d 537 [2006];McCrary v Street, 34 AD3d768 [2006]; Whittaker v WebsterTrucking Corp., 33 AD3d 613 [2006]; Yashayev v Rodriguez, 28 AD3d 651 [2006]).[*2]
Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facieburden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiff's papers submitted in opposition weresufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Kjono v Fenning, 69 AD3d at 581;Chiara v Dernago, 70 AD3d at 746; Gaccione v Krebs, 53 AD3d 524 [2008]; Coscia v 938 TradingCorp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Fisher, J.P., Covello, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.