Lazu v. Harlem Group, Inc.Lazu v. Harlem Group, Inc.
The record demonstrates that plaintiff failed to submit evidence in admissible form with findings on his ranges of motion contemporaneous with the accident. Although the letter of his treating physician contained such contemporaneous findings, it was unsigned, and “[s]tatements and reports by the injured party‘s examining and treating physicians that are unsworn or
Furthermore, plaintiff‘s neurologist failed to address the findings of defendants’ radiologist that plaintiff had degenerative changes at the L4/5 and L5/S1 levels that preexisted the accident. It is noted that the findings of plaintiff‘s radiologist that discs L4-S1 “show desiccative changes consistent with degenerative process” were consistent with the findings of defendants’ radiologist, and supported the conclusion that plaintiff had a preexisting condition (see Valentin v Pomilla, 59 AD3d 184, 186 [2009]).
Dismissal of plaintiff‘s 90/180-day claim was also proper. Plaintiff failed to submit medical proof in support of the claim that he was unable to perform substantially all his activities of daily living for the requisite period (see Shu Chi Lam v Wang Dong, 84 AD3d 515, 516 [2011]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.