| Thompkins v Ortiz |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03377 [95 AD3d 418] |
| May 1, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Farah A. Thompkins, Appellant, v Belkis V. Ortiz,Respondent. |
—[*1] Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered April 25, 2011, whichgranted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimouslymodified, on the law, to the extent of reinstating plaintiff's claims that she sustained a "permanentconsequential limitation of use of a body organ or member" and/or a "significant limitation of useof a body function or system," and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Defendant established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action whereplaintiff suffered injuries to her left foot, ankle and knee as she was exiting a livery cab driven bydefendant. Plaintiff alleged that defendant started driving away before she was completely out ofthe cab, resulting in the car rolling over her foot and the door banging her knee. Defendantsubmitted an affirmed report of a radiologist who reviewed an MRI of plaintiff's left knee andopined that her condition was degenerative and that there was no evidence of acute or recentinjury. Defendant also submitted the affirmed report of an orthopedic surgeon who found thatplaintiff's knee, ankle and foot demonstrated full ranges of motion (see Grant v United Pavers Co., Inc., 91AD3d 499 [2012]).
In opposition, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact. She submitted, inter alia, the report of aradiologist who found that the MRIs showed a partial intrasubstance meniscal tear of the leftknee. Plaintiff also submitted reports of her orthopedic surgeon who conducted arthroscopy onher left knee and found meniscal tears, and of an orthopedist who, upon recent examination,found plaintiff had limited ranges of motion in her left ankle and knee and an antalgic gait to theleft. The orthopedist also opined that the injuries were permanent and would require furthertreatment (see Mitchell v Calle, 90AD3d 584 [2011]; Torres vVillanueva, 90 AD3d 523 [2011]). The orthopedist adequately addressed the causationissue by opining that the injuries were caused by the accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208,219 [2011]; Yuen v Arka Memory CabCorp., 80 AD3d 481 [2011]).[*2]
Dismissal of plaintiff's 90/180-day claim was proper.Plaintiff testified that as a result of the accident, she missed only one day of school (see e.g.Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 958 [1992]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta,Renwick and Richter, JJ.