Gibbs v Reid
2012 NY Slip Op 03108 [94 AD3d 636]
April 24, 2012
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 23, 2012


Althea Gibbs et al., Respondents,
v
Andre O. Reid et al.,Appellants.

[*1]Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel),for Andre O. Reid and Charleen Temple Express, Inc., appellants.

Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Westbury (Thomas R. Craven, Jr., of counsel), for Jermaine A.Davis and Stacey A. Bonner, appellants.

Andrew C. Laufer, New York, for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered March 24,2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motions forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs did not suffer a seriousinjury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously reversed, on the law,without costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in defendants'favor dismissing the complaint.

Defendants established prima facie that the infant Monique Gibbs's alleged cervical spineinjury and plaintiff Sabrina Stewart's alleged cervical and lumbar spine injuries did not constituteserious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), by submittingaffirmations by multiple experts reporting a full range of motion in all planes (see Toure vAvis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350, 353 [2002]). Any discrepancies in the experts'stated normal values for certain ranges of motion are insignificant, especially since a full range ofmotion was demonstrated in every plane (see Ovalles v Herrera, 89 AD3d 636 [2011]; Anderson v Zapata, 88 AD3d 504[2011]). Moreover, defendants also submitted the affirmations of a radiologist who opined thatGibbs's bulging lumbar disc was degenerative in origin and that Stewart's cervical spine showedno herniations or bulges.

Plaintiffs failed to raise any issue of fact because none of their evidence was submitted inadmissible form. Their chiropractor affirmed his reports, but chiropractors are not among thosewhose affirmations have the same force and effect as affidavits (see CPLR 2106).Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Acosta and Freedman, 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.