Velez v Wilson (2013 NY Slip Op 52034(U))

Velez v Wilson

2013 NY Slip Op 52034(U) [41 Misc 3d 143(A)]

Decided on December 3, 2013

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Monserate Velez, Respondent, —

against

Michael P. Wilson, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered June 19, 2012. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In this action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the accident in question (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]; Kreimerman v Stunis, 74 AD3d 753 [2010]). In opposition, plaintiff submitted competent medical evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether she had sustained serious injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of her spine under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Compass v GAE [*2]Transp., Inc., 79 AD3d 1091 [2010]; Boskey v GTWY, Inc., 78 AD3d 1095 [2010]). Plaintiff submitted affirmations by her treating physician, who stated that his examinations and the EMG which he had performed on plaintiff revealed, among other things, a loss of range of motion in plaintiff's cervical and lumbar spine, as compared to normal ranges of motion, and cervical and lumbar disc bulges. The doctor concluded that plaintiff's injuries were permanent and causally related to the accident in question. Contrary to defendant's contention, plaintiff, through the affirmation of her treating physician, adequately addressed defendant's doctor's findings of degenerative disc disease (see Johnson v Cristino, 91 AD3d 604 [2012]; Williams v Fava Cab Corp., 90 AD3d 912 [2011]). Furthermore, plaintiff's submissions sufficiently explained the cessation of her treatment (see Ramkumar v Grand Style Transp. Enters. Inc., ___ NY3d ___, 2013 NY Slip Op 06638 [2013]; Khavosov v Castillo, 81 AD3d 903 [2011]; Tai Ho Kang v Young Sun Cho, 74 AD3d 1328 [2010]). Consequently, the Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.