FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 05/10/ :24 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/10/2018

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND MICHELLE R. SILFAN, Index 0:151529i2016 -against- Plaintiff(s), AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION ARLENE S. TOURANCE Defendant(s.) DAVID J. SEIDEMANN, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms pursuant to CPLR 2106 as follows: 1. I am a member of the Law Offices of Seidemann 8 Mermelstein, attorney for Plaintiff and am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding this matter. 2. This affirmation is submitted in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment wherein they seek to dismiss Plaintiffs claims for personal injury. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy section 5102 of the insurance law. 3. In support of said motion, Defendant submits an attorney's affirmation the medical reports of a Dr. Edward Palluzzi, Dr. Carly Glastein and the Radiological reports of Dr. Howard Kiezner. 1 of 22

2 4. At the outset, it is striking the doctors hired by Defendant to examine Plaintiff and her records, arrive at almost mutually exclusive conclusions. Dr. Feit who read the MRI reports but did not examine Plaintiff, opined that Michelle Silfan's spine is riddled with degenerative disc disease, the result of which should produce tremendous restriction of motion. However, Dr. Rubinshteyn who examined the Plaintiff but not the films opines that plaintiff not only has no restriction of motion but is actually super human. For example, normal range of motion according to Dr. Rubinshteyn for lumbar flexion is 60 degrees. Plaintiff, according to Dr. Rubinshteyn measures 100 degrees. In each one of lumbar planes, Dr. Rubinshteyn finds that Plaintiff exceeds by a large percentage the normal range of motion. It is difficult to reconcile Dr. Feit's findings with Dr. Rubinshteyn's findings and they therefore should both be rejected outright. They are conclusory and proferred to deligitemize Plaintiffs claim. 5. All of the reports of the other doctors who treated and observed Plaintiff are incorporated into Plaintiffs treating physician's file. Additionally, they were relied upon in Defendant's moving papers. 6. Not only does Dr. Rubinshteyn contradict Dr. Feit, Dr. Rubinshteyn contradicts himself opining and unrestricted that Plaintiff suffers from pre existing degenerative joint disease but complete range of motion, 2 of 22

3 7. Defense counsel argues that Plaintiff presented with a degenerative condition called osteoarthritis which preceded this motor vehicle accident. Yet, the doctor hired by Defendant affirms that Plaintiff, (despite the osteoarthritis) has complete and total range of motion in the lumbar, cervical and shoulder areas and range of motion which exceeds the average human being. 8. The "take away" from that position espoused by defense counsel and the defense doctors, is that Plaintiff's osteoarthritis condition has absolutely no effect on Plaintiff's mobility. Full range of motion was measured by Dr. Rubinshteyn despite an opinion of Dr. Feit that plaintiff's body is riddled with a degenerative spine disease. 9. That would lead any rational mind to conclude that if plaintiff has herniated discs confirmed by MRI, and measured restriction of motion measured over a period of time, and not during a ten minute exam by the defense doctors, that said pain and restriction of motion must be as a result of the motor vehicle accident of April 26, Defense counsel's position combined with the findings of the defense doctors, confirm the conclusion of Plaintiffs treating physicians that the herniated discs sustained in the motor vehicle accident are the cause of Plaintiffs pain and restriction of motion and any degenerative condition would have no effect on Plaintiffs mobility. One must contrast two ten minute defense exams, when range of motion was measured, with the range of motion findings adduced by Plaintiffs physician which was conducted on multiple over a period treating occasions, long 3 of 22

4 of time. One must also weigh the contradictory conclusions and findings of the Defendant's doctors. 10. Accordingly, Defendant's motion must be denied. 11. Arguendo that, the deficiencies and inconsistencies in Defendant's position does not render the submission as legally insufficient, Plaintiff offers the following in opposition. FACTS 12. On April 26, 2015 at approximately 1:150 PM Plaintiff's vehicle was rear ended by Defendant's vehicle. 13.Plaintiff was employed as a health care provider at the time of the incident and missed two full weeks of work as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. She returned after those initial two weeks but had to reduce her schedule. Additionally, her patient load was modified and she was provided with an assistant. She was and is no longer able to lift patients. 14. Plaintiff began a course of treatment for her injuries with Dr. Edward Palluzzi. Her complaints were of cervical pain, lower back pain, headaches and shoulder pain. 15. The medical records annexed herewith indicate that Ms. Silfan underwent fourteen months of treatment. She ceased going for treatment when the treatments no 4 of 22

5 longer provided additional relief. At the advice of her doctors she began a course of home exercises which she continues to do until today. 16.The medical records of Dr. Palluzzi and Dr. Glasten indicate that range of motion was tested immediately after the accident when Plaintiff began treatment. Range of Motion was measured periodically throughout treatment and once again recently, in At all times, Plaintiff evidenced marked restriction of motion. Dr. Edward Palluzzi's reports are annexed as Exhibit A. Dr. Glastein's reports are annexed as Exhibit B. 17.Plaintiff was referred by her doctor for MRI exams of her cervical, thoracic and lumbar spines. Those reports are annexed herewith as Exhibit C. 18.The exams revealed that Plaintiff sustained herniated cervical discs at C6-7 and a bulging disc at C5-6. The lumbar MRI exam revealed that Plaintiff sustained disc bulges at L5-S1 and L3-4 and a herniation at L4-5. The thoracic MRI revealed that plaintiff sustained multiple bulges. 19.Plaintiff has had no subsequent motor vehicle accident other than this April 26, 2015 accident. She was, as her doctor reports asymptomatic from a 2007 motor vehicle accident. 5 of 22

6 20.Annexed herewith as Exhibit D is the affirmation of Dr. Edward Palluzzi written in reference to their recent exam of Ms. Silfan which took place in Once again Ms. Silfan;s range of motion was measured and marked restriction of motion was found in the cervical, lumbar and thoracic regions. The physicians causally relate the limitations to the motor vehicle accident of April 26, PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY Annexed herewith is Pplaintiff's deposition testimony Exhibit D. Under oath on June 14, 2017 she testified in pertinent part as follows: Page 13; lines Plaintiff was employed full time as a coordinator of care in the health field. Page 14; lines Plaintiff was working on the day of the accident which was a Saturday. Page 18; lines Plaintiff missed two weeks of work immediately following the accident. Page 23; lines Plaintiff asked for and was given assistance in performing her work duties. Page 25; lines Patients that were heavy and previously assigned to Plaintiff, were reassigned. Page 26; lines 7-10-Plaintiff was provided with assistance at work. Page 32; lines Property damage to her vehicle was between $5, and $6, dollars. 6 of 22

7 Page 45; line2 and lines Plaintiff was stopped when she felt a heavy impact from the rear. Page 47; lines Plaintiff was wearing a seatbelt. the total back end of the vehicle was pushed in and misaligned. Page 55; lines Page 52; lines and lines Plaintiff felt stiffness in her shoulder and on the right side of her body. Page 58; lines Two days later Plaintiff went to a Chiropractor in the area. Page 59; lines 5-7- Plaintiff complained of headaches, neck pain, shoulder pain, back pain all on the right side. Page 60; lines MRIs done to three sections Page 62; lines MRI results were abnormal. Page 63; lines as of June 2017 not still treating. Lives with pain. Takes advil. Plaintiff described the treatment as follows: Page 63; lines Continuing to Page 64; lines 2-5- Treatments consisted of physical adjustments and laying on a vibrating table. Page 64; lines plaintiff also saw an Orthopedist at Shore Ortho Group 7 of 22

8 Plaintiff had a prior accident in 2007 but was not experiencing any pain at the time period leading up to this accident. Page 72; lines 4-5 and lines Plaintiff was informed the results of the MRI and advised to continue with chiropractic treatments. Page 76; lines Plaintiff still has persistent complaints and takes advil all the time. Plaintiffs present complaints were testified to as follow: Page 77; lines Plaintiff still complains of stiffness in her neck and shoulder with limited movement. She can not move her arm. Her arm, neck and shoulder are in pain. Page 78; lines Page 68; lines continuing to Page 69; lines The shoulder pain radiates to the neck and back of the arm. Page 79; lines Since the accident, plaintiff is taking advil three times a day. Current disability: Page 80; lines and continuing on Page 81; lines Plaintiff has limited range of motion with arm going back to the right side. She can 8 of 22

9 no longer do stretching exercises. Plaintiff can not lift heavy things and her activities at the gym are compromised. Plaintiff cannot lift patients, cannot vacuum or go bowling. She no longer works out at the gym. Page 83; lines Plaintiff does not lift weights anymore. Page 85; lines Page 83; lines Plaintiff can not lift anything that weighs more than one or two pounds. 21.Every aspect of Plaintiffs life has been affected. Plaintiff can not lift patients and needs a co-worker to assert her. 22.Plaintiff can not vacuum or do laundry in the home. 23.Plaintiff can not go bowling, lift weights or exercise in the gym as she did prior to this accident. 24.Plaintiff stopped treatment with Dr. Palluzzi only when treatments were not helping anymore. She continues to live with the pain. 9 of 22

10 ARGUMENT I. DEFENDANTS FAILED TO MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF. DEFENDANTS' EXPERT OPINES THAT PLAINTIFF SUSTAINED A SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF RANGE OF MOTION 25. Defendants' motions for summary judgment should be denied since they have failed to sustain their burden of proof. Their evidence is deficient and cannot prove that Plaintiff has not sustained a serious injury. The burden of proof has never shifted to the Plaintiff. Defendants rely on the reports of their experts to demonstrate that Plaintiffs injuries do not meet the level required by 5102 of the New York State Insurance Law. Defendants' expert reports are inadequate for supporting their claim of entitlement to summary judgment. Both doctors fail to review the MRI reports and address their relevance or non-relevance to the injuries claimed. II. IF THE COURT DECIDES THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS TO THE PLAINTIFF THEN DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE DENIED SINCE PLAINTIFF HAS SUSTAINED A SERIOUS INJURY AND HAS SATISFIED SECTION 5102(d) OF THE NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE LAW. MORE SPECIFICALLY, PLAINTIFF HAS SUSTAINED A SIGNIFICANT AND CONSEQUENTIAL LIMITATION OF USE OF A BODY FUNCTION OR SYSTEM 10 of 22

11 26. The record clearly shows that plaintiff has sustained two cervical herniated discs; one lumbar herniation disc; two cervical bulges and two lumbar bulges and a thoracic disc bulge. These injuries were diagnosed through MRIs. Plaintiff's doctor confirms that the herniated discs are as a result of acute trauma. Weighing of the evidence and the credibility of the parties must be left for the jury. Noble v. Ackerman 252 A.D.2d 392, 394, 629 N.Y.S, 2d 198 (1st Dep't 1995). Other cases as Grullon v. Chu 240 A.D. 2d 367, 657 N.Y.S. 2d 776 Dep't 1997); Adentunji v. U-Haul Company of Wisconsin 250 A.D. 2d 483, 672 N.Y.S. 2d 689 (1st Dep't 1998) state that conflicting expert testimony is a matter peculiarly within the province of the jury, Shawe v. Binghamton Lodge No. 852, 155 A.D. 2d 805, 548 N.Y.S. 2d 81, 82 (3rd Dept. 1989). 27. The court in Noble assesses that the testimony by the plaintiff and [her doctor] provided evidence of injuries to the plaintiff's cervical spine and disc resulting in chronic pain and decreased range of motion. This evidence was plainly sufficient to establish a prima facie case of a serious injury. 28. Plaintiff would like to bring to the Court a plethora of case law that supports his position that plaintiff has sustained a serious limitation of a use of a body member or organ. 11 of 22

12 i. Lopez v. Senatore 65 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 494 N.Y.S. 2d 101 (1985) a physician's opinion that limitation of neck movement of 10% was significant precluded summary judgments for the defendant. ii. Amofa v. N.C.S. Leasing Corp A.D. 2d 289, 668 N.Y.S. 2d 460 (1st Dept.) - 25% loss of spinal range of motion was significant. iii. Lival v. Amoroso 239 A.D. 2d 565, 658 N.Y.S. 2d 973 Dept. 1997) - 20% restriction of motion was significant. iv. Zalduondo v. Lazowska 234 A.D. 2d 455, 651 N.Y.S. 2d 117 Dept. 1996) - physician's opinion that a bulging cervical disc was significant, precluded summary judgment. 29. Furthermore, Plaintiff has met her burden of proof as defined by Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79, 707 N.Y.S.2d 233 Dept. 2000), Dulduloa v of New York 284 A.D.2d 296, 725 N.Y.S.2d 380 Dept. 2001), Pierre v. Nanton, 279 A.D.2d 621, 719 N.Y.S.2d 706 Dept. 2001) which maintain that plaintiff expert is required to explain the objective medical tests performed to support his findings and specify degree or extent of range of motion. Dr. Palluzzi in his affidavit and re-exam attached (Exhibit E), Measured plaintiffs range of motion, compared plaintiff's range of motion to the norm ~ Articulated the objective tests he performed 12 of 22

13 Causally related the injury sustained to this accident Explains the significance and the effect of this injury upon the plaintiff Explains plaintiffs future prognosis 30. The cases of Gaddy v.. Eyler 79 N.Y.2d 955 (1992) and Licari v. Elliot 57 N.Y.2d 230 (1982) maintain that the evidenced proffered by the plaintiff must not be of a minor, mild or slight limitation of movement in the neck and back. Dr. Palluzzi has submitted proof that the plaintiffs loss of range of motion is not mild, minor or slight but that the plaintiff has sustained losses in range of motion, far exceeding the 10% as enunciated in Lopez supra. 31. In addition, to qualify under section 5102, the injury need be significant and not permanent. Scamacca v. Bennet 161 A.D. 2d 1197, 555 N.Y.S. 2d 527 (4th Dept. 1990). The current Plaintiff exhibits a loss which far exceeds the findings in all of the aforementioned cases where summary judgment was denied. 32. The Court in Anderson v. Persell, 272 A.D.2d 733, 788 N.Y.S.2d 499 (3rd Dept. 2000), opined that a disc herniation may constitute a serious injury if the plaintiffs doctor using objective medical evidence correlates the disc herniation to the accident and describes it as the source of plaintiffs pain and limited range of motion. 13 of 22

14 33. In the present matter before the Court, Dr. Palluzzi confirms the results of the MRI uses objective medical testing, correlates the injury to the accident and states that the herniations are the cause of plaintiffs pain. 34. Quinn v. Licausi, 263 A.D.2d 820, 693 N.Y.S.2d 762 Dept 1999) concluded that plaintiffs medical proof was sufficient. Plaintiff presented objective medical testing (an MRI), plaintiffs doctor confirmed that plaintiffs complaints were causally related to the accident and the injury amounted to a significant limitation of use of a body function or system. 35. In opposing defendants' motions for summary judgment, plaintiff has established that she has suffered a serious injury. Plaintiff sets forth evidence that she has suffered a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system." Once plaintiff has set forth this evidence submitted in affidavit form indicating a loss of range of motion of the cervical-muscular skeletal system, then defendants' motions for summary judgment must be denied. 36. In Grullon v. Chu, 240 A.D. 2d 367, 657 N.Y.S. 2d 776 Dept. 1997), plaintiff presented an affidavit from a physician who concluded based upon his examinations and a review of his medical records that plaintiff had measured and quantified restricted motion of his cervical spine and such limitation was significant and permanent. The court said, "This evidence was sufficient to establish prima facie that the plaintiff suffered a serious injury.*' 14 of 22

15 37. More importantly the Court of Appeals in decisions handed down on July 9, 2002 spoke clearly, resolutely and definitively on the "threshold" issue. In these separate cases consolidated for reporting purposes, the highest Court in this expert' State ruled that even without measured restriction of motion "an expert's qualitative assessment of a plaintiff's condition may also suffice" to meet the threshold of serious injury. 38. Toure v. Avis Rent a Car System, 98 NY2d 345 (2002), requires that plaintiff present an opinion by the examining physician that the disc pathology was caused by the motor vehicle accident; that plaintiffs injuries are the sort that result in restriction of motion; and that the limitations claimed by the plaintiff are "a natural and expected medical consequence" of his injuries. 39. This line of reasoning was affirmed in the second of these consolidated O' reported decisions (cited above) in a case captioned Manzano v. O'Neil. "Although this medical expert did not assign a quantitative percentage to the loss of range of motion, he described the qualitative nature of plaintiffs limitations. 40. In short, when the plaintiffs doctor finds spasms or disc pathology to the accident, and the plaintiff enumerates physical limitations, the plaintiff has met the threshold. In our case, plaintiff has gone beyond requirements of Toure and provided measured restriction of motion. 15 of 22

16 41. In a detailed sworn report, plaintiff's doctor notes the restriction of motion and discusses in layman's terms how that restriction of motion is a significant limitation to the plaintiff. According to Thompkins v. Burtnick 236 A.D. 2d 708, 652 N.Y.S.2d 911 (3rd Dept. 1977), an affidavit based on the physicians own observations suffice as objective evidence. In addition, the Court in Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208 (2011), rejected the requirement that Plaintiffs range of motion be measured contemporaneous with the accident. The Court opined that it was sufficient for Plaintiff's doctor to provide objective evidence and that the injuries were significant and causally related to the accident. 42. Furthermore, Dr. Palluzzi describes in great detail how the herniated discs are a serious and permanent, and how they represent the loss of a significant structural component of a body member, organ and system. 43. Plaintiffs doctor further opines that the accident caused the injuries noted by objective testing; that the injuries are permanent; and that as a result of the injuries, plaintiff is permanently partially disabled. Our case stands in line with Grullon, where the Court held that quantified range of motion restriction satisfies the threshold. 44. Plaintiff has suffered herniated discs, diagnostically confirmed by MRI and doctor' clinically confirmed by the objective testing of Dr. Palluzzi. Plaintiffs doctor's findings are in affidavit form which complies with the Courts directive in (3' Cammarerc v. Villinoua, 160 A.D. 2d 760, 562 NYS 2d 808 Dept. 1990). 16 of 22

17 At the very least, the submission of the physicians findings in sworn form, creates a triable issue of fact which must be submitted to the jury under Falk v. Goodman, 7 NY 2d 87 (1959). 45. The court in Glielmi v. Banner 254 A.D. 2d 255, 678 N.Y.S.2d 138 Dept. 1998) and Wadi v. Tepedino 242 AD2d 327, 661 N.Y.S. 2D 260 Dept., 1997), stressed the importance of the medical examination similar to the one conducted by plaintiff's physician being a recent examination; Dr. Palluzzi's findings are based upon an examination that occurred a few weeks ago. 46. On the issue of permanency, Gonzalez v. Vasquez, 301 A.D. 2d 438, 54 NYS 2d 7 (3rd Dept. 2003) and DaSilva v. Storz, 290 A.D. 2d 288, 735 NYS 2d 548 (1st Dept. 2002) both these cases state that an opinion of plaintiff's doctors that the bulaina or herniated disc is related to the accident and that range of motion is restricted, suffices to defeat a motion for summary judgment. 47. As far as causation is concerned, Dr. Palluzzi considered all other causes of the pain and restriction of motion, excluded other causes and concluded with a degree of medical probability that the injuries were traumatically induced. When examining physician opines that the injuries are traumatically induced, that diagnosis excludes all other possible etiology. See Kassel v. Szczecina, 51 A.D. 3d 872, 858 N.Y.S. 2d 346 Dept. 2008) and Lake v. Cellen (8225/07 Supreme Court Bronx County, June 8, 2009). 17 of 22

18 Gap In Treatment 48. On the issue of "gap in treatment" the Court in Pommells v. Perez; Brown v. Dunlap and Carrasco v. Mendez, 4 NY 3d 566 (2005), that a plaintiff's claim can be dismissed pursuant to 5102 if no reasonable explanation for a gap or cessation in treatment is offered by the plaintiff. No such explanation was proffered and plaintiff's case was dismissed. 49. Our case is analogous to Brown v. Dunlap wherein plaintiff Brown found the treatments not to be beneficial anymore. Our Plaintiff, continues treatment at home after the physical therapy sessions were no longer providing relief. Ill. ~ DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE DENIED SINCE PLAINTIFF HAS SUSTAINED A SERIOUS INJURY AND HAS SATISFIED SECTION 5102(d) OF THE NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE LAW. MORE SPECIFICALLY, PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO PERFORM HIS VOCATION OR AVOCATION FOR 90/180 DAYS FOLLOWING THE ACCIDENT 50. Plaintiff was advised by her treating physician to curtail her work schedule due to a medically determined injury causally related to the motor vehicle accident of April 26, Full time employment was part of Plaintiffs normal routine and her inability to participate pursuant to her doctor's directives satisfy $ of 22

19 (d), specifically the 90/180 day requirement,. Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208 (2011), Delayhaye v. Caledonia Limo 8 Car Service Inc., 61 A.D.3d 814, 877 N.Y.S 2d 438 Dept. 2009), Carr v. KMO Transp.,. Inc., 58 A.D.3d 783, 872 N.Y.S. 2d 476 Dept. 2009). 51. In Takaroff v. A. M. USA, Inc., 63 A.D.3d 1142, 882 N.Y.S.2d 265 Dept. 2009), the Court opined that the burden of proof never shifted to Plaintiff since Defendant failed to address Plaintiff's claims of 90/180 asserted in his Bill of Particulars. In Defendants' motion does not refute Plaintiffs 90/180 claim; Defendant has not provided any medical evidence to the contrary and therefore pursuant to Takaroff, Defendant has not met his burden of proof. Jensen v. Nicmanda Trucking, Inc. 47 A.D. 3d 769, 851 N.Y.S. 2d 594 Dept., 2008). 52. It is well established that in opposing defendants' motions for summary judgment, plaintiff is entitled to all reasonable inferences in her favor. Rodriquez v. The Parchester South Condominium Inc., 178 A.D. 2d 231, 577 N.Y.S. 2d 52 (1st Dept. 1991) Robinson v. Strong Mem. Hospital, 98 A.D. 2d 976, 470 N.Y.S. 2d 239 (4th Dept. 1983). 53. The role of the trial court in deciding a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist and not to decide disputed factual issues. Cruz v. American Export Lines, Inc., 67 N.Y. 2d 1, 13, 499 N.Y.S. 2d 30, (1986). Issue finding and not issue determination is the 19 of 22

20 function of the court. Celardo v. Bell, 222 A.D. 2d 547, 635 N.Y.S. 2d 85, Dept. 1995). When deciding a motion for summary judgment the Court must determine whether a material issue of fact exist and not attempt to resolve it. Federal Ins. Co. v. Automatic Burqular Alarm Corp A.D. 2d 495, 617 N.Y.S. 2d 53, 54 Dept 1994). 54. At the very least Plaintiff has presented medical evidence that raise an issue of fact defeating Defendants' requests for summary judgment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendants' motions for summary judgment and for such other and further relief this Court deems just and fit. Dated: May 1, 2018 Brooklyn, New York David. 1 Seidemann 20 of 22

21 STATE OF NEW YORK AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COUNTY OF KINGS BY MAIL Deena Ganchrow, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the deponent is a secretary in the office of SEIDEMANN & MERMELSTEIN, attorneys for one of the parties herein; is over 18 years of age; is not a party to the action. The deponent served the papers noted below upon the below named attorney(s) for the listed parties, by depositing a true copy of the same securely enclosed in a postpaid wrapper in a Letter Box maintained and exclusively controlled by the United States Postal Service; directed to the said attorney(s) at the address indicated below; that being the address within the state designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose, or the place where said attorney(s) then kept an office, between which places there then was and now is a regular communication by mail as follows: To: LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS C. BARTLING Attorneys for Defendant 875 Merrick Avenue Westbury, NY (516) Date mailed: May f Papers served: AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION/EXHIB Sworn to me, this day Of May 2018 D ena Ganchrow f Notary blic DAVID J. SElDEMANN Notsrtr p, State of New York No. 02SE QuaRRed in Nassau County rr/13' Commission 21 of 22

22 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND MICHELLE R. SILFAN Plaintiff, -against- ARLENE S. TOURANCE Defendant. AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION/EXHIBITS SElDEMANN 5 MERMELSTEIN Attorneys for Plaintiff 27th 974 East Street Brooklyn, NY (718) of 22