Rhodes v Stoddard
2010 NY Slip Op 09490 [79 AD3d 997]
December 21, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 16, 2011


Jennifer J. Rhodes, Respondent,
v
Suzanne M. Stoddard,Appellant.

[*1]Eisenberg & Kirsch, Liberty, N.Y. (Betsy N. Abraham of counsel), for appellant.

William Pager, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered May 25, 2010, which denied her motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a seriousinjury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While we affirm the order appealed from, we do so on a ground other than that relied upon by theSupreme Court. The defendant failed to meet her prima facie burden of establishing that the plaintiff didnot sustain 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 her motion, the defendant relied upon, interalia, the affirmed medical report of Dr. Jerrold M. Gorski, her retained examining orthopedic surgeon.Dr. Gorski examined the plaintiff on August 4, 2009. At that time, Dr. Gorski noted a significantlimitation in the range of motion of the plaintiff's cervical spine (see Kjono v Fenning, 69 AD3d 581 [2010]; Landman v Sarcona, 63 AD3d 690[2009]). Moreover, while Dr. Gorski made certain findings with respect to the range of motion of theplaintiff's left shoulder, he failed to compare all of those findings to what is normal (seeFrasca-Nathans v Nugent, 78 AD3d 651 [2d Dept 2010]; Chiara v Dernago, 70 AD3d 746 [2010]; Page v Belmonte, 45 AD3d 825, 826[2007]).

Since the defendant failed to meet her prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether thepapers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact(see Kjono v Fenning, 69 AD3d at 582; Frasca-Nathans v Nugent, 78 AD3d 651[2010]). Rivera, J.P., Covello, Eng, Leventhal and Austin, 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.