Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in Tabitha J. Jameson, Trent E. Chaney v. Jay K. Snyder| Trellis.Law

On March 29, 2021 a Order was filed involving a dispute between Tabitha J. Jameson, Trent E. Chaney, and Jay K. Snyder, for Torts - Motor Vehicle in the District Court of Monroe County.

Preview
INDEX NO. E2021002748
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2024
MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT.

Receipt # 3709143

Book Page CIVIL

Return To: No. Pages: 20
Chery A. Porter
545 Hall of Justice Instrument: ORDER
Rochester, NY 14617
Control #: 202401180527
Index #: E2021002748

Date: 01/18/2024

JAMESON, TABITHA J. Time: 11:59:03 AM
CHANEY, TRENT E.

SNYDER, JAY K.

Total Fees Paid: $0.00

Employee: CW

State of New York

MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE
WARNING — THIS SHEET CONSTITUTES THE CLERKS
ENDORSEMENT, REQUIRED BY SECTION 317-a(5) &
SECTION 319 OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK. DO NOT DETACH OR REMOVE.

JAMIE ROMEO.

MONROE COUNTY CLERK

1 of 20
tfs0 OUN kK 04 DIV INDE&& NOE 2621022062748
MONRO
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2024

At a Special Term of the Monroe County
Supreme Court, held.in.and for the County of
Monroe, Rochester, New York on November
2, 2023.

PRESENT: HON. SAM L. VALLERIANI
Justice Presiding

STATE OF NEW YORK.
SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF MONROE

TABITHA J. JAMESON AND TRENT E, CHANEY,
Individually and as Husband and Wife

Plaintiffs
Index No. E2021002748
vs
ORDER

JAY K. SNYDER
Defendant
mene tt nnn een nee nme

Defendant, JAY K. SNYDER, by his. attorneys, Burgio, Curvin & Banker, having

moved this Court for an Order pursuant to CPLR §3212-dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint on the

ground that the Plaintiff, TABITHA J. JAMESON, did not sustain a “serious injury” as defined

by New York State Insurance Law, and said motion having been opposed by Plaintiffs, TABITHA

J. JAMESON AND TRENT E. CHANEY, by their attorneys, Cellino Law, LLP: and

NOW, upon the Notice of Motion of Defendant JAY K. SNYDER, dated August 3, 2023,

the Affirmation of Hilary C. Banker, Esq., dated August 3, 2023, with Exhibits 1 through 29,

including the Affirmation of Peter Capicotto, M.D. dated August 2, 2023 (Exhibit 7) and the

> £20.
nk DIV INDEEXNG E 26202062748
MONRO OUN 104
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2024

Statement of Material Facts dated August 3, 2023, all submitted in support of Defendant’s motion;

and

Upon the Affirmation in opposition of Nicholas B. Davis, Esq., dated October 23, 2023,

with attached Exhibit A, the Affirmation of Zair Fishkin, M.D., (undated) with attached Exhibits

A and B, the Affidavit of Richard Winch, D.C., sworn to on October 18, 2023, with attached

Exhibits A and B, and the Response to Statement of Material Facts dated October 23, 2023, all

submitted in opposition to Defendant’s motion; and

Upon the Reply Affirmation of Hilary C. Banker, Esq., dated November 1, 2023, with

attached Exhibit A, submitted in further support of Defendant’s motion; and

NOW, upon hearing Burgio, Curvin & Banker, Hilary C. Banker, Esq., of counsel, in

support of the motion on behalf of the Defendant JAY K. SNYDER; and upon hearing Cellino

Law, LLP, Nicholas B. Davis, Esq., of counsel, in opposition to Defendant’s motion on behalf

of the Plaintiffs TABITHA J. JAMESON AND TRENT E. CHANEY;

And, after having due deliberation upon the matters, and upon the Decision of this Court,

dated December 18, 2023, and attached to this Order as Exhibit A, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Ju ent is denied.

went HON. Sina Lea JSC.

3 £20.
MONRO OUN PK DM INDB@€xNO
E 262002062 748
ev :04
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2024

EXHIBIT A

4 of 20
tfs0 MONRO OUN NK 04 DM INDEEXNG E 28202062 748:
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/202:

Ata Term of the Supreme Court, in
and for the County of Monroe, Hall
of Justice, Rochester, New York.
PRESENT: HON. SAM L. VALLERIANI
Supreme Court Justice

SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NEW YORK MONROE.COUNTY
ii
i
TABATHA J. JAMESON AND TRENT E, CHANEY,
Individually and as Husband and Wife,

Plaintiffs, DECISION
“vse
INDEX No.: E2021002748
JAY K, SNYDER,
Defendant.

APPEARANCES:

Attorney for Plaintiff : Nicholas B. Davis, Esq.
16 W. Main Str., 6" Floor
Rochester, NY 14614

Attomey for Defendants: Hilary C. Banker, Esq.
496 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14202

Sam.L. Valleriani; J.

Defendant filed a motion requesting an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212 and Insurance

Law § 5102(d) dismissing plaintiffs complaint on the basis that plaintiff did not suffer a-serious

injury under any category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see CPLR § 3212; CPLR’§ 5102[d]).

Plaintiff opposes defendant’s motion submitting that triable issues of fact exist which can

not be resolved.on a motion for summary judgment.

Facts

55 £
kK DIV INDi@ExN@ E 2EZD200R 748,
MONRO OUN 104
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/202:

Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the October 20, 2020 motor vehicle accident, which il

occurred in Henrietta when defendant, allegedly intoxicated by drugs; ran a red light. Plaintiff

alleged that-she sustained serious injuries which are supported and detailed in the medical
i

records including: L3-L4 disc extrusion; L4-L5 right recess encroachment; L5-S1 bilatetal recess

encroachment; spondylosis; stenosis; radiculopathy; intervertebral disc syndrome;, subluxations;

lumbago; sciatica, aggravation and/or activation of pre-existing degnerative changes of the

lumbar spine; surgical scarring; all resulting in surgical intervention; C7-T1. disc protrusion;

radiculopathy; ‘subluxations; cervicalgia; sprains/strains; aggravation and/or.activations of pre-

existing degenerative changes of the cervical spine; intervertebral disc syndrome; subluxations;
i
and thoracalgia. (plaintiff's verified bill of particulars, NYSCEF dkt-13).

Insurance Law §.5102 defines “serious injury” as:

“[dJeath; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; a fracture; loss of a fetus;

permanent loss of use of body organ, member, function or system; permanent

consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member [permanent
i
consequential limitation category]; significant limitation of use of a body function

or system [significant limitation category]; or a medically determined injury or

impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from

performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such persons
.
usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one

hundred and eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or i
fi
impairment [90/180-days category]”(see Insurance Law §.5102[d]).

Plaintiff claims to have sustained a serious injury pursuant to the following categories under
y
ii
i
4

£29
tfs0 MONRO OUN NK 04 DM INDEEXNG E 28202062
748:
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/202:

Insurance Law § 5102(d): the permanent consequential limitation category; the significant ii

limitation category; significant disfigurement due to surgical scarring of the lumbar spine and the

90/180-days category (see CPLR § 5102[d]; NYSCEF dkt 13 verified bill of particulars).

Defendant asserts that summary judgment should be granted dismissing plaintiff's

complaint as there is no objective evidence that plaintiff suffered a serious injury under any of
i
ii
the alleged serious injury categories. Defendant submits that in light of plaintiff's “significant

medical history and documented prior complaints and claims arising from prior injuries, motor

vehicle accidents.and complaints of pain pre-dating the subject accident, in addition to her post-

accident injury and treatment,” there is no evidence that the alleged symptoms:ate causally

related to this accident (see affirmation of H. Banker, Esq. dated August 3, 2023). |
Summary Judgment
It is well-settled that the proponent of a. summary judgment motion must make a prima

facie showing of entitlement to judgment asa matter of law, by tendering sufficient evidence in

admissible form to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see Oddo v City of

Buffalo, 159 AD3d 1519, 1520 [4" Dept 2018]; Wingrad v NY Univ. Med. Cir., 64 NY2d 851,
853[1985]). The failure of the movant to make the prima facie showing requires denial of the

motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (A/varez v Prospect Hospital, 68

NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; CPLR 3212[b]). The evidence must -be viewed as true in a light most

favorable to the non-moving party (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562

[1980]; Dixy Pines Hotel, Inc., 188.AD2d 1007 [4" Dept 1992]). Once the prima facie showing

has been met, the burden shifts to the non-moving opposing party to submit evidentiary proof in

admissible form sufficient to raise ‘a triable issue of fact‘(Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324).. The court’s

z £29.
tfs0 OUN kK 04 DIV INDEEXNG E 28202062
748:
MONRO
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/202:

function on a summary judgment motion is issue finding not issue-determination (see. Patton v

Matusik, 16 AD3d 1072 [4 Dept. 2005]).. The court must.carefully consider the material facts to

determine whether any facts are genuinely in‘dispute (see Forrest v Jewish Guildfor the Blind, 3

NY3 295, 312 [2004]; Glick & Dolleck v Tri-Pac Export Corp., 22 NY2d 439, 441 [1968]).

Mere conclusions, expressions of hope, or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions:are

insufficient to warrant denial of summary judgment (see Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 562; see also

Christina v Erbsmehl, 233 AD2d 909, 910 [4" Dept 1996]):

Defendant in challenging plaintiff's causes of action under the serious injury threshold,

carries the initial burden of establishing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious as a result of the

accident as a matter of law (see Smith v. State Farm, 176 AD3d 1608 [4" Dept 2019)).

Dr. Peter Capicotto, M:D., defendant's IME doctor, upon examination of plaintiff two

years after the accident, review of the films and imaging, medical records and testimony, opines

within a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to the alleged injuries as follows:

“1, Low back Pain-Pre-existing progressive multilevel degenerative disc disease.

Claimant has an extensive history of documented back pain dating to 2013. with

multiple visits to different emergency rooms. During those visits she had findings

suggestive of sciatica by way of physical findings of a positive straight leg raise.

Imaging in 2014, 2015 and 2018 demonstrates findings of progressive multilevel

degenerative dise disease and facet arthritis L3-S1. In 2017 she is seen for

progressive chronic back pain. During that period she was using a combination of

narcotics and muscle relaxants and anti-inflammatories for pain relief. In 2018

she is seén/again for severe low back pain both at the University as well as at

3 £30
kK DIV INDi@ExN@ E 2EZUD2EL 748:
J MONRO OUN 104
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2624

Rochester Regional Health; the diagnosis at that time being acute-right-sided low

back pain-without sciatica (ICD 724.2). On 09/07/20, one month prior to her

subject.accident of 10/20/20 she is seen with complaints consistent with an ankle ii

sprain and-additional complaints of low back pain that radiates or shoots to her

left foot. At that time her history of shooting pain being worse with prolonged
il

Sitting while working is consistent with lumbar disc herniation. Neurological

exam is normal but her differential diagnosis:against includes sciatica, The day

following the motor vehicle accident the claimant does not have back pain or leg

pain.as one’of her chief complaints. In fact, in reviewing the.records no

lumbosacral x-rays are ordered despite a battery of other x-rays being ordered for

her alleged injuries. This scenario of having no subjective complaints of a

significant increase in back pain and no investigation into her lumbar spine

radiographically is highly atypical for management of spinal injuries, especially

given her pre-existing history of degenerative disc disease, back pain and sciatica.

It is not until approximately 20 days post accident that there is documentation of i

back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain. The neurological exam by Dr.
{i
Winch at that time is positive for weakness in the bilateral peroneals, however, no

other provider documents this pattern of neurological loss. It is documented inthe
i
emergency room notes that up until 02/10/21 the claimant’s: pain in her back and ti

left leg would come and go and-the night prior she had severe pain radiating into

her left leg. Thus, it is my opinion, to within a reasonable degree: of medical ii

certainty, that the subject accident causes at.most.a temporary exacerbation.of her

{i
i!
4

of -
kK DIV INDi@ExN@ E 2EZUD2EL 748;
J MONRO OUN 104
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2624

subjective complaints of chronic back pain. I find no causal relationship between

the subject accident and a serious or.significant spinal injury. There is no causal

relationship between the subject accident:and the need for surgery. There isa.

well-defined history of chtonic and progressive symptomatology from back pain

to radicular complaints with associated objective radiological findings of chronic

progressive degenerative-age related changes. This is supported by imaging that

also demonstrates progressive changes. It is. further my opinion that there is no
i
i
consequential disability as it relates to the accident of 10/20/2020. With regard to

the accident of 06/27/2021, based on the claimant’s symptomatology and the

imaging demonstrating recurrent disc herniation, it would appear that the accident

of 06/27/2021 caused an aggravation of her pre-existing post-laminectomy state.

2. Neck pain. Claimant’s imaging fails to identify any acute changes. Her exam

does not demonstrate any evidence of any radicular findings. Despite her

subjective complaints, there is no objective evidence of any serious or significant
i
injury.

3. Thoracic-pain. Claimant denies having any thoracic pain. Her exam

demonstrated no objective findings of any thoracic pain, and her imaging is

negative for any serious or significant injury. There is no causal relationship to.

thoracalgiam and there is no consequential disability: This is a preliminary

conclusion” (defendant’s Ex. 5, NYSCEF Dkt 17, Dr. Capicotto IME report). i
i
Despite Dr. Capicotto’s opinion that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury, he determined upon

his physical examination that plaintiff was tender at C7-T1 level without-any spasins with mild

+0 4-29
kK DIV INDi@ExN@ E 2OZUD2VEL 748;
MONRO OUN 104
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 1/17/2024;

paraspinal tenderness in this region (see id.). Dr. Capicotto also found that her lumbar spine was

tender throughout the-incisional region down to the lumbosacral region, but there were no

paraspinal spasms (see id.). He also found limited range of motion in her neck as follows:

extension .50 degrees/60 with pain; left bending 25 degrees/45.normal; right bending 25

degrees/45 normal; leftward rotation 50 degrees/90 normal; rightward rotation 50 degrees/90

normal, and a restricted range of motion to her lumbar with 30/90, but she refused extension and
i
lateral bending secondary to pain (see id.). {

Plaintiff submits that defendant is not entitled to summary judgment as the motion fails to

meet defendant’s initial burden by eliminating all issues of fact, and does not address plaintiff's

serious injury claim under the 90/180 days category. |
Serious Injury

Plaintiff claims that she sustained a serious injury under the following categories of

Insurance Law § 5102(d): permanent.consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member;

significant disfigurement due to surgical scarring of the lumbar spine;-a significant limitation of

use of a body function or system; and a medically determined.injury or impairment of a non-

permanent nature which prevents her from performing substantially all of the material acts which

constitutes her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the first 180

days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment (plaintiff's verified bill of i

particulars).

Even assuming arguendo that defendant met its initial burden, contrary to.defendant’s "
ti
claims, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact. Plaintiff s-medical experts made objective medical i

findings that plaintiff suffered:a serious injury, and opined that her injuries were causally related
i

WW £39
kK DIV INDi@ExN@ E 2822042748)
MONRO OUN 104
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: @1/17/2024

to the October 20, 2020 accident. Dr. -Zair Fishkin, M.D., PhD, plaintiff's treating surgeon i

found that plaintiff had significant loss in range of motion of nearly all planes of her cervical and

lumbar spine approximately five months after the accident as. specifically set forth in his affidavit

(affirmation of Dr. Fishkin §97,8), He also found central .dise protrusion.at C7-T1] and disc

extrusion at L3-L4, severe stenosis and a herniated disc at L4-S1 (see id. 49). Dr. Fishkin opined
uf
to areasonable degree of medical certainty that plaintiff sustained a significant injury to her spine

with-an aggravation of the “underlying degenerative process in her cervical and lumbar spine, as

well as a protruding dise at C7-T1; disc extrusions at L3-L4 and a herniated disc at L4-S1 (see id.

1118). Dr. Fishkin opined that the injuries and surgery were sustained as a direct result of the
i
subject MVC (see id. $13). He further opines that the injuries-are not mild or slight and resulted

in a significant limitation of use of her cervical and lumbar spine which caused pain and

interfered with her activities of daily. living (see id. $22).

Similarly, Dr. Richard Winch, D.C. who has treated plaintiff since November 20, 2020,

one month after the accident, submits that he-has performed physical examinations of plaintiffs
i
cervical and lumbar spine detecting objective medical findings of muscle spasms consistent with

plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain. Dr. Winch opines to a reasonable degree of medical
i
certainty that plaintiff:
i
“sustained serious physical injures to her cervical and lumbar spine, including

dis[e] protrusion at C7-T1,.L3-4, L4-5 and L5-S1, with resultant stenosis, |u
cervicalgia, cervical sprain/strain, radiculopathy, lumbar sprain/sprain and/or

activation and aggravation of previously asymptomatic changes in her cervical

and lumbar spine-all as a'result of the subject MCV. These diagnoses directly

12. £29-
tfs0 OUN kK 04 DIV INDi@ExN@ E 2220 7 48:
MONRO
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/202:

correlate with her complaints of pain in her neck radiating into her shoulder and

arm, and also her-complaints of low back pain radiating into-her lower

extremities, as well-as my object testing, including the MRI findings, and the

objective findings upon clinical examination, which included the presence of

muscle spasm, and significant losses in ROM” (affidavit Dr. Winch, D.C. dated

October 18, 2023).

Dr. Winch opines that plaintiff's pain, limitations and muscle spasms have affected her ability

and most of her activities including standing, sitting, walking and sleeping as a result of her

causally related cervical and. lumbar injury (see id.). Dr. Winch submits that he reviewed the

cervical and lumbar MRIs which provide objective findings supporting plaintiff's paint and

significant range in motion reductions which are set forth in his affidavit and chiropractic records

(see id.). Spasms through palpitations, significant ROM deficits and MRI films evidencing disc

impairment are objective findings of a serious injury (see id. with attached treatment records; see

Rissew v Smith, 89 AD3d 1383, 1384 {4ht Dept, 2011]).

90/180

Plaintiff asserts that-although defendant’s. expert reviewed plaintiff's records and

plaintiff's experts’ opinions that she suffered a causally related injury which caused pain and

limitations interfering. with substantially all of her activities of daily living, defendant’s expert

failed to opine whether plaintiff suffered an injury which preverited her from performing

substantially all of the material acts of her ususal or customary daily activities for 90/180 days

immediately following the accident. Defendant’s-expert did not evaluate plaintiff until two years

after the accident. Consistent with those medical findings, plaintiff testified that from the

33 £29
tfs0 OUN kK 04 DIV INDEEXNG E 28202062 748;
MONRO
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/202:

October 20, 2020 accident until January 2021 she:stayed with her mother, she was afraid to drive,

and there were days she could not get out of bed (plaintiff's deposition pgs:96-99). She testified

that she stopped doing laundry, barely cooked because she could not stand, had difficulty:

showering and needed assistance getting into the tub (see id. pg 100). She did admit to driving

for Grubhub, but claims that it was occasional when she was not in pain (see id. pg 99).

Since defendant failed to adequately address plaintiff's 90/180 days category of serious

injury in his moving papers, defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden on that category (see

Reynolds v Wai Sang Leung, 78 AD3d 919 [2d Dept 2010); see also Trivedi v Vural, 90 AD3d

1031 [2d Dept 2011]). However, even assuming defendant met his initial burden ona motion for
i
summary judgment, plaintiff has also raised triable issues of fact. under the 90/180 days category.

Causally related, medically determined strains and sprains which curtail a parties ability to do

substantially all of their usual and customary activities are sufficient to raise an issue of fact (see

Barrow v Dubois, 82 AD3d 1685 [4" Dept 2011]).

In reply, defendant has addressed plaintiff's claim under the 90/180 days category.

Defendant asserts that plaintiff's admission to driving for Grubhub the Friday after the accident,

and the lack of any doctor report disabling her from work, fails to. raise-an-issue of fact. As

defendant acknowledges, plaintiff was already disabled from work and receiving disability

benefits for mental health issues. Moreover, these contentions raised for the first time in reply

papers can not be considered by the.court (see Jacobson v Leemilts Petroleum, Inc., 101 AD3d

1599,1600 [4" Dept 2012]). Plaintiff's testimony coupled with her expert affidavits raise issues

of fact whether substantially all of plaintiff's daily activities were curtailed as a result of the

accident (see George v City of Syracuse, 188 AD3d 1612, 1614 [4" Dept 2020])

10.

+4-0F 6,8
NK DM INDi@ExN@ E 2EZUD2EL 748;
MONRO OUN 104
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2024)

Permanent consequential limitation of use.of a body organ or member: asignificant limitation of ii

use of a body function or system

Plaintiff’ s-treating chiropractor based upon his review of the films, records and

examination of plaintiff opined that plaintiff suffered.a causally related significant limitation of

use and. permanent consequential limitation of use of her cervical and lumbar spine which has |
ii
i!
caused continued pain, and a limited range of motion as more fully set forth above (affidavit of uf

Dr. Winch), Similarly, Dr. Fishkin opined with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that

based upon his review of the records, MRIs, examinations and the surgery he performed, plaintiff

suffered a causally related serious injury. Both experts provided their diagnosis based:on

objective medical evidence with a comparative determination regarding limited range of motion

testing which is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact under both serious injury categories-

significant limitation of use of a body function or system and.permanent consequential limitation

(see Dufel v Green, 84 NY2d 795, 798 [1995]; see also Burke v Moran, 85 AD3d 1710, 1711 [4"

Dept 2011]; Gonzalez v McCarver, 206 AD3d 1584, 1586 [4" Dept 2022]; Insurance Law §
H
5102{d)).
In reply, defendant submits that the plaintiff's experts’ opinions fail to raise issues of fact.
ii
Although plaintiff's experts provided range of motion studies neither expert compared plaintiffs

tange of motion prior to the accident, and that the opinions also fail to consider plaintiff's later,

June 27, 2021, accident. Although the court agrees that plaintiff had multiple injuries from

multiple accidents, her experts have made specific objective findings through examination and.

review of the records, to support their opinions regarding the injuries associated with this

accident: The failure to consider certain records or disregard others goes to the weight.and not
i

“t5- f 8
tfs0 OUN kK 04 DIV INDIEXNG E 28202062 748:
MONRO
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/202:

the admissibility of the expert’s opinion (see Bhuiyan v Germain, 211.AD3d 667,669 [2d Dept

2022]; Rosenfeld v Baker, 78 AD3d 810 [2d Dept 2010]). Moreover, the dispute as to which

accident caused the injuries:is a causation issue for the-trier of fact to resolve (see Gonzalez at

1585). Defendants contention in reply that Dr. Fishkin did not compare plaintiff's range of

motion after prior hospital visits for back pain from accidents, two falls and work related strains,

but prior to this accident, is contrary to his affidavit. which states upon a review of the records,

plaintiff's range of motion post these events but prior to this accident was normal (affidavit of

Dr. Fishkin {ff 24,25).. The cases cited, by defendant in reply, where there was no pre- and post-

accident comparison are inapplicable because after the pre-accident hospital visits here,

plaintiff's range of motion was normal (see id.; Overhoffv Perfetto, 92 AD3d.1255 [4" Dept

2012); Boroszko v Zylinski, 140 AD3d 1742 [4" Dept 2016]).

Accordingly, in review of the record and the disputed expert opinions, plaintiff has raised

triable issues of fact regarding each of the categories of serious injury alleged in the complaint

including a back injury which has resulted in continued pain, a limited range of motion and

disability (see Feggins v Fagard, 52 AD3d 1221 [4 Dept 2008]; McKeon v McLane, 145 AD3d

1459 [4" Dept 2016]). Once plaintiff establishes that one injury is a qualifying injury, a plaintiff

may recover for-all injuries resulting from the accident (see O'Neill v O'Neill, 261. AD2d 459 [2d

Dept 1999]). The experts* opinions contradicting or disagreeing with one.another creates.issués

of credibility which can not be resolved on-a motion for summary judginent (see Anderson-v

Persell, 272. AD2d 733,735 [3 Dept 2000}).
For the reasons stated, defendant’s reply does not change the determinations made herein.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

£ 26.
kK DIV INDEEXNG E 26202062.
748
MONRO OUN 104
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2024

Statement of Material Facts

The court encourages the parties to submit an agreed to statement of material facts at the

time of trial.

This constitutes the decision of the court. Any relief requested but not specifically

granted is denied. Plaintiff shall submit an order on notice within 10 days. Since the note of

issue has been filed, please find the attached standby trial order. If the parties wish to further

mediate the matter or believe a settlement conference may be beneficial, they should immediately

malo
contact the court.

IA
HON. SAM L. VALLERIANI
| / Supreme Court Justice

13;

VW
17-of £ 26.
MONRO OUN PK DM INDEEXNG E 28202062748
:04
NYSCEF BOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2024

PRESENT: HON. SAM L. VALLERIANI
Justice of the Supreme Court

STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF MONROE STAND BY
TRIAL ORDER
Index No. E2021002748
TABITHA J. JAMESON, TRENT E. CHAN RJI Date:

-against-

JAY K. SNYDER

The parties having conferred between themselves and with the Court, it is now hereby ORDERED:

1 Trial Date:

If your case is reached, the Stand By trial date is March 8, 2024, with Jury Selection beginning at 9:30
a.m. and the trial continuing through March 15, 2024. Openings and Proofs will begin at 10:00 a.m. the following
day.

When a matter has been set for trial pursuant to a Stand By Trial Order, you will be advised as soon as the Court
knows whether the Day Certain Trial has settled, adjourned or otherwise been resolved. In the event the designated
attorney is not available or has a prior conflicting trial, then he/she is to secure replacement counsel pursuant to 22
NYCRR § 125.1(g). Notice is hereby given that failure to proceed will result in a default judgment or dismissal with
prejudice.
Counsel is advised to report to Chambers (Fifth Floor Deputy Desk, Hall of Justice, Rochester, New York), for a
Pre-Trial Conference on Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 10 a.m. The purpose of the conference is to set the trial
schedule, review anticipated trial issues, entertain any pre-trial applications, and discuss potential settlement. All clients
and adjustors shall be available by telephone.

2. Jury Verdict Sheet:

Ten (10) calendar days prior to the Pretrial Conference scheduled herein, each party shall provide written Proposed
Jury Verdict Sheets to the Court and opposing counsel in both hard copy form and via electronic mail to
cporter@nycourts.gov in MS Word or Wordperfect format. Any objections thereto shall be made in writing no later
than seven (7) calendar days prior to the Pretrial Conference scheduled herein, or will be deemed waived. Supplemental
Proposed Verdict Sheets may be permitted based on previously unknown or unanticipated developments or testimony at
trial

3. Request to Charge:

Ten (10) calendar days prior to the Pretrial Conference scheduled herein, each party shall provide the Court and
opposing counsel with written paragraph-specific references to Pattern Jury Instructions that said party requests be
provided by the Court to the jury. Any objections thereto shall be made in writing no later than seven (7) calendar days
prior to the Pretrial Conference scheduled herein, or will be deemed waived. Requests to Charge shall be provided to
the Court and opposing counsel in both hard copy form and via electronic mail to cporter@nycourts.gov in MS
Word or Wordperfect format. To the extent possible, parties are encouraged to rely on Pattern Jury Instructions as
opposed to writing their own instructions. Supplemental Requests to Charge may be permitted based on previously
unknown or unanticipated developments or testimony at trial.

4. Motions in Limine and Memorandum of Law:

Ten (10) calendar days prior to the Pretrial Conference scheduled herein, each party shall submit any motions in
limine and a memorandum that addresses each question of la

Case Info

Judge

Sam Valleriani Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 18, 2024

Case Filing Date

March 29, 2021

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Order: Tabitha J. Jameson, Trent E. Chaney v. Jay K. Snyder

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties