Case: Motor Vehicle Accident and Serious Injury Claim
Counsel: Mordy Sardar
Headline: Plaintiff Testimony is Shown to be Contradictory and Defective
Result: Summary judgment on both liability and threshold
Plaintiff alleged that our client’s vehicle rear-ended her car, pushing her into oncoming traffic, where she was hit by Co-Defendants’ bus. Plaintiff testified that the vehicle that hit her fled the scene. Our client denied rear-ending the Plaintiff and photos and the police report showed that he remained on the scene. In opposition to our motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff submitted an affidavit of her daughter, which completely contradicted Plaintiff’s testimony. Mr. Sardar emphasized the Court of Appeals holding that the court may disregard affidavits which are solely designed to shield the Plaintiff from the consequences of her prior testimony. The second prong of the motion made clear that plaintiff did not meet the serious injury threshold. Mr. Sardar argued that Plaintiff’s opposing expert’s report should be disregarded because the report failed to mention Plaintiff’s prior auto accident, or her prior treatment to her neck, back, shoulders, or knees. Thus, Plaintiff’s expert’s report was defective as a matter of law, since it failed to analyze the impact of Plaintiff’s prior injuries on her condition.