SHORT FORM ORDER Present: SUPREME COURT HON. JOSEPH A. - STATE OF NEW YORK DE MAR0 Justice -- ------ ALICE JIMINEZ, TRIAL/l-AS, PART 10 NASSAU COUNTY -against- Plaintiff, METROPOLITAN SUBURBAN BUS AUTHORITY (MSBA), METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY (MTA), SAMUEL H. SMITH, JR., KERR1 J. BROWN and ROMPER NURSERY, INC., MOTION DATE: December 4, 2001 INDEX No. 2072/99 SEQUENCE No. 2 Defendants. The following papers read on this motion: Notice of Motion and Supporting Papers Affirmation in Opposition Reply Affirmation '>L Motion by defendants, MTA Long Island Bus s/h/a Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority, and bus operator Samuel H. Smith, Jr., for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 and Insurance Law section 5102(d) and 5104(a) dismissing the complaint against them, is granted. The plaintiff, Alice Jiminez, a passenger on one of the defendant's (MTA Long Island Bus) buses, operated by defendant
Smith, was injured when said bus collided with defendant Romper Nursery's bus operated by defendant, Kerri J. Brown. The plaintiff alleges in paragraph 17 of her Verified Bill of Particulars that she sustained the following personal injuries: The moving defendants have made a prima facie case by the negative findings in the affidavit of Harvey Manis, M.D., a physician specializing,@ orthopedic surgery and in the affirmation of Dr. Kuldep Sachdev, specializing in neurology as well as plaintiff's own sworn testimony taken in her examination before trial on October 3, 2000, together with plaintiff's own physician's (John M. Stewart III, M.D. orthopedic consultant report dated October 27, 1997) negative findings within a few days of the accident and her own belief statements to him as to the lack of any serious injuries. "Lumbar sprain/strain, lumbar derangement, lumbar myofascitis with radiculapathy and nerve root compression with an MRI finding of bulging disc at L3-L4, Bulging Disc at L4-L5 associated with a midline disc, protrusion/herniation, Grade 1 retrolisthesis of L5/Sl with associates pseudoherniation caused by the posterior displacement of L5 relative to Sl. Cervical sprain/strain, cervical derangement, cervical myofascitis with radiculapathy and nerve root compression with an MRI finding of disc bulging at C3-4, C4-5 and C5-6 with an EMG finding of bilateral median neuropathy and a bilateral C8 radiculapathy. Post-traumatic headaches with ringing and/or buzzing in the ears, blurred vision and dizziness. Anxiety, depression, insomnia." The burden, therefore, shifts to plaintiff to come forward with sufficient evidence to overcome defendants' motion by 2
demonstrating that she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of the No-Fault Insurance Law. NY2d 955, 957.) (See: Gaddv v Euler, 79 Plaintiff initially argues that the defendants' instant motion for summary judgment was untimely as it was made on September 28, 2001, approximately 230 days after the filing of the Note of Issue on February 8, 2001; and, therefore, it should be denied under CPLR 3212(a) because it has been made more than 120 days after the filing of the Note of Issue without the defendants' showing good cause for the delay. However, the Court has discretion to permit a summary judgment motion be made beyond the 120-day period where the plaintiff suffers no prejudice (Zwecker v Clinch, 279 AD2d 572) and where defendants' motion shows a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment and a meritorious defense. (Gentles v New York City Transit Authority, 275 AD2d 388; Milone v Cheema, 270 AD2d 165.) This is so regardless of whether any excuse is offered in the interest of judicial economy to avoid providing ai safe haven for frivolous or meritle>s lawsuits (Cardona v Countv of Albany, 188 Misc2d 440) and particularly where the opposing party has not manifested any prejudice. (McKay v Ciani, 280 AD2d 808.) Defendants' attorney, Marilyn Venterina, in any event, offered the excuse that she was unable to move for summary judgment any sooner based upon an extremely busy trial calendar and deposition calendar; that several employees left her firm's employ; and since tlr-e b,.-: LYAiiLli& r-; n o I:r,r_e? yea-' her r: _~_^ two attorney LI-ill has -Lriz,~ approximately ten cases and was, therefore, unable to.make the 3
within motion any sooner. Defendants also contend plaintiff has not claimed any prejudice and the action would not be reached for trial in the near future. After considering all these factors, the Court, in its discretion, grants defendants leave to move for summary judgment nunc pro tune, although the motion was made more than 120 days after the plaintiff filed the note of issue. In opposition to defendants' motion, plaintiff's attorney asserts that although defendants have produced affirmations from their doctors, they have failed to supply the actual reports of defendants' doctors' examinations which show that neither Dr. Mannis or Dr. Sachdev had any of the plaintiff's medical records available for review at the time of their examinations on November 1, 2000. Plaintiff submits the December 29, 1996 unverified report of Melissa Sapina, Neuroradiologist, of the examination of plaintiff's cervical spine MRI concluding as follows: "Impression: Mild disc bulging at C3-4 and C5-6", together with Alan B. Greenfield, M.D. of Suffolk Health and Medicine Comprehensive Services, Inc.' s % unverifzed report dated February 23, 1998 of the MRI of the lumbar spine of plaintiff, concluding as follows: "Impression: 1. Technical limitation as indicated above, 2. Degenerative disc disease from L3 through Sl, 3. Bulging disc at L3-L4 associated with borderline spinal canal stenosis, 4. Bulging disc at L4-L5, however, associated with a midline disc protrusion/herniation, 5. Spinal canal stenosis, Grade 1 retrolisthesis of L5/Sl with associated pseudoherniation caused by the posterior displacement of L5 relative to Sl, hyperthraphy of 4
the legamentis flavin contribute to transverse narrowing of the canal at this level". These documents, however, were not subscribed before a notary public or other authorized official and, therefore, they are not competent evidence. (See: CPLR 2106; Paqano v Kincsburv, 182 AD2d 268; Merisca v Alford, 243 AD2d 613; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266, 267.) Accordingly those documents are insufficient to create a triable issue of fact. Moreover, bulging discs or for that matter, even herniated discs do not, in and of themselves, constitute a serious injury. Descovich v Blieka, 279 AD2d 499; Maqras v Colasuonno, 278 (See: AD2d 388; Guzman v Paul Michael Manaqement, 266 AD2d 508.) "Rather, the plaintiff is still required to provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of physical limitations resulting from such injuries and their duration"; but plaintiff's evidence here with respect thereto was lacking. (Descovich v Blieka, supra, at p. 500.) Indeed, plaintiff has failed to submit sufficient proof to establish the existence of serious injury, as a matter of law. It is well settled that plaintiff's expert must submit verified objective medical findings based on a recent examination of the plaintiff. (Grossman v Wrisht, 268 AD2d 79, citing Kauderer v Penta, 261 AD2d 365. j Further, any significant lapse of time between the cessation of treatment and recent physical examination, must be adequately explained. Mere medical reports not in admissible form are wholly insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Tk;_,e?-7=;-i-: PLd-&ii--i 'F has failed to submit a medical affidavit or affirmation based upon a recent examination, but rather has 5
submitted unsworn and unadmissible medical reports from 1997 and 1998 which are insufficient to raise an issue of fact with respect to the existence of a serious injury. Moreover, plaintiff ceased treatment years prior and returned to work 72 days after the bus accident. Not only does plaintiff fail to explain the gap in treatment from such time to the present, but has returned to work within the go-day period following the accident. In addition, plaintiff has failed to submit an expert affidavit or affirmation setting forth quantitative objective findings. rely on unsworn MRI reports. Plaintiff may not (See: Grossman v Wrisht, supra; v Fosq, 255 AD2d 502; Peschanker v Looorto, 252 AD2d 485.) The plaintiff has also submitted her own affidavit sworn to on November 28, 2001 that since the motor vehicle accident, she has experienced pain in her neck and back and that she attempted chiropractic and I physical therapy treatment for approximately nine months but only received periodic relief and that at the present time continues to have complaints of pain in her back and neck; and that she cannot Soto sit for long periods of time or properly negotiate stairs and has problems working and lifting objects and can no longer turn her head or bend at the neck properly. subjective complaints with plaintiff However, such is based on not having submitted verified objective medical findings with respect to same. Moreover, complaints of transitory pain are not sufficient to establish the existence of a serious injury. (Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678; Daliendo v Johnson, 147 AD2d 312.) The cases cited by plaintiff tothe contrary, Moore v Taooen, 242 AD2d 526, Jackson. v United 6
Parcel Service, 204 AD2d 605, and Grebleski v Mace, 241 AD2d 888, involved sworn medical affirmative and objective evidence, which evidence plaintiff did not submit here. It is clear that plaintiff's bill of particulars with respect to her injuries were conclusory, self-serving statements and that the plaintiff has not proven that she sustained a "serious injury" proximately caused by the bus accident or that there is an issue of fact with respect thereto. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted in favor of the moving defendants dismissing plaintiff's action against them. Plaintiff's action against co-defendants Brown and Romper Nursery, Inc. is severed and continues. This constitutes the Order and Judgment of the Court. Dated:, 7