A Kings Car Accident Lawyer said that, defendants move for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s action on the grounds that he did not suffer a “serious injury” as defined by § 5102(d) of the NYS Insurance Law. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff claims he sustained personal injury as a result of an automobile accident on March 13, 2009, at the corner of Fort Hamilton Parkway and 65th Street in Kings County, when his vehicle was hit in the rear by a vehicle owned and operated by defendants respectively. Plaintiff states he later sought treatment from several doctors and subsequently commenced the within negligence action against defendants. Plaintiff claims (Bill of Particulars) he has suffered injuries including cervical sprain with herniated disc and radiculopathy, lumbosacral sprain with disc bulges and radiculopathy, and internal derangement of the left knee. Plaintiff was 45 years old at the time of the accident. Examinations Before Trial and Independent Medical Examinations of the plaintiff have been conducted.
A Kings Spinal Injury Lawyer said that, as an initial matter, plaintiff claims that defendant’s motion was not timely made. Plaintiff filed his Note of Issue on February 1, 2010. Defendants filed a prior motion for Summary Judgment on April 21, 2010, within the sixty-day time limit provided for in the Uniform Civil Term Rules for the Supreme Court, Kings County. Defendants then filed this “Amended Motion” on June 10, 2010. The difference between the two motions is that the “Amended Motion” adds the Independent Medical Examination report of a radiologist. On August 19, 2010, the date on which this motion was marked submitted, defendants were asked by the Court to withdraw their first motion to avoid confusion, as there were two motions for the same relief. Plaintiff is correct that the amended motion is late, and that defendants’ papers do not offer a showing of good cause for their untimeliness (CPLR 3212(a). As defendants’ original motion was timely, the court will consider the motion, but not the radiologist IME report, which was first included in the amended motion. In hindsight, the court should have marked the first motion “submitted” and denied the second one as both late and duplicative.
The issue in this case is whether plaintiff sustained serious injury as defined under the Insurance Law.
Defendants contend the complaint must be dismissed because plaintiff has not sustained a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) which provides: “Serious injury” means a personal injury which results in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; a fracture; loss of a fetus; permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially of the material acts which constitute such person’s usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment.
To Br Cont…
If you have similar money claims, seek the help of a Kings Car Accident Attorney and Kings Personal Injury Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.