| Pinzon v Gonzalez |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02406 [93 AD3d 615] |
| March 29, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Blandina Pinzon, Appellant, v Christina F. Gonzalez,Respondent. |
—[*1] Cheven, Keely & Hatzis, New York (William B. Stock of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about March 1, 2011,which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the complaint on theground that plaintiff did not raise an issue of fact as to whether she suffered a serious injurywithin the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously reversed, on the law,without costs, and the motion denied.
Defendant met her prima facie burden on summary judgment with the submission of theaffirmed reports of experts that established that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury as a resultof the accident at issue and found instead that she suffered from preexisting degenerativeconditions.
However, plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether she sustained serious injuries to herleft knee, cervical spine, and lumbar spine by submitting the affirmed reports of radiologistsstating that the MRIs of those body parts showed a tear of the medial meniscus and tear of themedial collateral ligamentous complex, disc herniations of the cervical spine, and lumbar discbulging, along with a contemporaneous examination by plaintiff's treating physician showinglimited ranges of motion in each of those body parts (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; seeToure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]).
Plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to the permanence of those injuries by submitting theaffirmed report of a neurologist who conducted a recent examination showing limited ranges ofmotion in all of those body parts (seeAntonio v Gear Trans Corp., 65 AD3d 869 [2009]; Thompson v Abbasi, 15 AD3d 95, 97 [2005]). Contrary todefendant's argument, this report does refute the findings of defendant's experts as to thedegenerative nature of plaintiff's condition by specifically attributing the injuries to the accident(see Williams v Perez, 92 AD3d528 [2012]), and specifically identifying and disagreeing with two of defendant's experts (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208[2011]; Fuentes v Sanchez, 91AD3d 418 [2012]). Concur—Tom, J.P., DeGrasse, Freedman, Richter andRomán, JJ.