D'ANGELO, STEPHANIE v. LITTERER, ANDREA S. ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    981
    CA 11-00425
    PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, GREEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
    STEPHANIE D’ANGELO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
    V                           MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    ANDREA S. LITTERER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    HAGELIN KENT LLC, BUFFALO (VICTOR M. WRIGHT OF COUNSEL), FOR
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    BROWN CHIARI LLP, LANCASTER (BRADLEY D. MARBLE OF COUNSEL), FOR
    PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y.
    Devlin, J.), entered September 17, 2010 in a personal injury action.
    The order, insofar as appealed from, denied in part the motion of
    defendant for summary judgment.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is
    unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted
    in its entirety and the complaint is dismissed.
    Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for
    injuries she allegedly sustained when the vehicle she was driving
    collided with a vehicle driven by defendant. Supreme Court erred in
    denying in part defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing
    the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious
    injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Defendant met
    her initial burden by submitting medical records and the report of the
    physician who conducted a medical examination on defendant’s behalf
    establishing that the injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff in the
    accident were preexisting. “Because defendant submitted ‘persuasive
    evidence that plaintiff’s alleged pain and injuries were related to .
    . . preexisting condition[s], plaintiff had the burden to come forward
    with evidence addressing defendant’s claimed lack of causation’ ”
    (Clark v Perry, 21 AD3d 1373, 1374, quoting Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d
    566, 580). Plaintiff, however, failed to meet that burden. Indeed,
    her “submissions in opposition to the motion did not ‘adequately
    address how plaintiff’s current medical problems, in light of
    [plaintiff’s] past medical history, are causally related to the
    subject accident’ ” (Anania v Verdgeline, 45 AD3d 1473, 1474; see
    Hartman-Jweid v Overbaugh, 70 AD3d 1399, 1400).
    Entered:    September 30, 2011                  Patricia L. Morgan
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA 11-00425

Filed Date: 9/30/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024