Nicholas v. Cablevision Systems Corp., 116 A.D.3d 567

Wilde thought process. The user wants me to convert two pages of a legal document into clean, semantic HTML following specific instructions. **Case Information Extraction:** - Page 1 starts with the end of one case and then starts a new case. - The instructions say for multi-opinion documents, convert only the MAIN opinion (the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body). - The first case on page 1 is clearly the end of a previous case (Concur—Friedman...). - The second case on page 1 starts with “Sherry C. Nicholas, Appellant, v Cablevision Systems Corp. et al., Respondents.” - This second case seems to be the main one. However, looking at the very bottom of page 2, another case starts: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rod H. Brown, Appellant.” - I need to decide which is the “main” opinion. Usually, this means the first complete one in the provided text. - Case 1 (Nicholas): - Caption: Sherry C. Nicholas, Appellant, v Cablevision Systems Corp. et al., Respondents. - Citation: [984 NYS2d 332] (Note: the OCR says 984NYS2d332, I should check the image. It looks like [984 NYS2d 332]). - Court: Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.). It‘s an Appellate Division, First Department case (based on the “1st Dept 2012” citations and the “Concur—Friedman...” signature block). The “Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County” is the order being appealed. - Date: The order appealed from is April 2, 2013. The citation [984 NYS2d 332] suggests an Appellate Division report. Looking at the concurrence list, these are typically AD1 judges. - Case 2 (Brown): - Caption: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rod H. Brown, Appellant. - Citation: [983 NYS2d 725] - This one is just starting at the bottom of the page. I will focus on “Nicholas v Cablevision Systems Corp.” as it is the first complete caption/body provided. **Case Information Details for Nicholas:** - `shortName`: Nicholas v. Cablevision Systems Corp. - `docket`: None provided explicitly, though sometimes it‘s at the top. Here, there isn‘t one. - `court`: NY App. Div. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department). - `date`: Not explicitly stated as a decision date, but the “Order... entered April 2, 2013” is the underlying one. Wait, looking at the top of the page (567) and the flow, these are short memo decisions. - `citation`: 984 N.Y.S.2d 332. **Structure:** - `` - Prefatory info for the previous case (skip as per “Multi-Opinion Documents” rule: “Skip partial content from a previous case“). - Case Information for Nicholas. - Body of Nicholas. - Concurrence block. - Stop before Brown case. Wait, the instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Page 1 starts with the end of a sex offender case. I skip that. Then comes Nicholas. It has a caption and a body. It ends on page 2 with “Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Gische and Clark, JJ.” Then comes Brown. It starts but is cut off. So Nicholas is the main opinion to convert. **Nicholas Metadata:** - Name: Sherry C. Nicholas, Appellant, v Cablevision Systems Corp. et al., Respondents. - Short Name: Nicholas v. Cablevision Systems Corp. - Citation: 984 N.Y.S.2d 332 - Court: N.Y. App. Div. (First Department) - Date: The text doesn‘t explicitly give the date of *this* decision, only the date of the order being appealed (April 2, 2013). However, given the citation and the judges, this is an Appellate Division, First Department case from approximately 2014. Since the exact date isn‘t in the text provided, I might have to leave it out or check if it‘s there. It‘s not. I‘ll omit the `midpage-date` if not found. **Pagination:** - Page 567 starts. The Nicholas case caption is on 567. - Page 568 starts mid-paragraph. **Citations to tag (Nicholas):** - `Insurance Law § 5102 [d]` -> `` - `Robinson v Joseph, 99 AD3d 568 [1st Dept 2012]` -> `` - `Santos v Perez, 107 AD3d 572, 574 [1st Dept 2013]` -> `` - `Colon v Torres, 106 AD3d 458 [1st Dept 2013]` -> `` - `Malupa v Oppong, 106 AD3d 538 [1st Dept 2013]` -> `` - `Rosa v Mejia, 95 AD3d 402, 404-405 [1st Dept 2012]` -> `` - `Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]` -> `` - `Merrick v Lopez-Garcia, 100 AD3d 456 [1st Dept 2012]` -> `` - `Uddin v Cooper, 32 AD3d 270 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]` -> `` (main) and `` (denied). - `Hernandez v Adelango Trucking, 89 AD3d 407 [1st Dept 2011]` -> `` **Reflowing text:** - “assess-ment” -> “assessment” - “ev-idence” -> “evidence” - “Lopez--\nGarcia” -> “Lopez-Garcia” (Wait, “Lopez--Garcia” is likely a typo in the source or double hyphen. I‘ll stick to single if it‘s a line break hyphenation, but here it‘s “Lopez--” then line break “Garcia“. Usually “Lopez-Garcia“.) - “ac-\nademic” -> “academic” Let‘s refine the metadata for Nicholas. Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department. Short code for court: `NY App. Div.` or `1st Dept`. Instructions say Bluebook. Bluebook for NY Appellate Division is `App. Div.`. Specifically `N.Y. App. Div.`. Let‘s double check the start. Page 567: Starts with text: “fendant a level two sex offender...” - Skip this as it‘s partial previous. Then: “Sherry C. Nicholas, Appellant, v Cablevision Systems Corp. et al., Respondents. [984 NYS2d 332]” Then a black bar. Then “Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County...” Okay, let‘s assemble. **HTML Output Generation:** ```html Case Information Sherry C. Nicholas, Appellant, v Cablevision Systems Corp. et al., Respondents. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department 984 N.Y.S.2d 332 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered April 2, 2013, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the serious injury threshold, and denied as moot plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment as to liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendants made a prima facie showing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury to her neck, back, or left knee as a result of the motor vehicle accident. They submitted the affirmed reports of an orthopedist who found normal ranges of motion in all body parts, and a neurologist who, while finding limitations in the lumbar spine, opined that MRI films of the spine showed nonspecific degenerative conditions unrelated to the accident (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Robinson v Joseph, 99 AD3d 568 [1st Dept 2012]). In opposition, plaintiff submitted her examining physician’s report finding recent range-of-motion deficits. However, the physician failed to explain the inconsistencies between his earlier findings of almost full range of motion in her cervical and lumbar spine and his present findings of deficits (see Santos v Perez, 107 AD3d 572, 574 [1st Dept 2013]; Colon v Torres, 106 AD3d 458 [1st Dept 2013]). Nor did plaintiff’s physicians address either the degeneration that defendants’ neurologist found in the MRIs taken of the cervical and lumbar spine or the preexisting conditions of morbid obesity and scoliosis (see Malupa v Oppong, 106 AD3d 538 [1st Dept 2013]; Rosa v Mejia, 95 AD3d 402, 404-405 [1st Dept 2012]). The MRI of plaintiff’s left knee was insufficient to provide objective medical evidence of any injury, and no other objective proof of a serious injury to the knee was submitted. Moreover, plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable explanation for ceasing treatment, despite her physicians’ recommendations of further treatment, which renders her expert’s conclusions as to permanency and causation speculative for all body parts (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]; Merrick v Lopez-Garcia, 100 AD3d 456 [1st Dept 2012]). Defendants established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury of the 90/180-day category, since her own evidence showed that her claimed injuries were no bar to the performance of her usual pre-accident activities, and there is no evidence that her absence from work was medically determined as a result of the accident and not related to the bunion surgeries she had undergone shortly before and after the accident. That plaintiff missed more than 90 days of work is not determinative of a 90/180-day injury (see Uddin v Cooper, 32 AD3d 270 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]). Given the absence of serious injury, the issue of liability is academic (see Hernandez v Adelango Trucking, 89 AD3d 407 [1st Dept 2011]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Gische and Clark, JJ. ``` Wait, looking closer at the concurrency block in the OCR: “Clark, JJ.” is for the *first* case ending at page 567. Then Nicholas starts. Then Nicholas ends on page 568 with: “Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Gische and Clark, JJ.” They are the same panel. Let me re-read the start of page 1. “fendant a level two sex offender ... Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Gische and Clark, JJ.” Then “Sherry C. Nicholas...” The Concurrence block for the sex offender case is on page 567. The Nicholas case is the next one. Nicholas ends on page 568. Wait, let‘s look at page 568 screenshot. It ends with: “Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Gische and Clark, JJ.” Then: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rod H. Brown, Appellant. [983 NYS2d 725]” So the sequence is: 1. End of Case A (Sex Offender) on p. 567. 2. Case B (Nicholas) starts on p. 567, ends on p. 568. 3. Case C (Brown) starts on p. 568. Main opinion = Case B. One correction: The citation for Nicholas in the text is `[984NYS2d332]`. I should format it as `984 N.Y.S.2d 332`. The date isn‘t there, so omit the date from the `details` block. Docket isn‘t there. Let‘s check for footnote marks. I don‘t see any in the images. Let‘s check for images. There are none (besides the black redaction bars which I should ignore/treat as structural separator removal). Wait, the black bars are used to redact case numbers or previous case info. The instructions say “Remove ... Case caption blocks (if already fully extracted to Case Information) — do not repeat court name, party names, or docket in the body“. I will omit the caption line “Sherry C. Nicholas, Appellant...” from the body as it goes into Case Info. Wait, looking at the layout: 567 [End of case A] [Black bar] Sherry C. Nicholas, Appellant, v Cablevision Systems Corp. et al., Respondents. [984 NYS2d 332] [Black bar] Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County... The citation [984 NYS2d 332] follows the party names. I‘ll put the citation in the Case Information. One final check on Law citations: `Insurance Law § 5102 [d]` -> `Insurance Law § 5102 [d]` Note: NY statutes usually have a short name like “Insurance Law“. In NY opinions, they often just say “Insurance Law“. The normalized cite should be `N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102(d)`. Case citations: `Robinson v Joseph, 99 AD3d 568 [1st Dept 2012]` -> `cite=“99 AD3d 568“`, `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`, `date=“2012“`. Note: AD3d is the reporter (Appellate Division, Third Series). The pinpoint/page is 568. `Santos v Perez, 107 AD3d 572, 574 [1st Dept 2013]` -> `cite=“107 AD3d 572“`, `pinpoint=“574“`, `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`, `date=“2013“`. Let‘s do the Brown case check. Should I include it? “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Brown has a caption but the text is cut off at the end of the page. So Nicholas is the only “complete” one. Re-checking “Multi-Opinion Documents“: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” The sex offender case text at the top of p 567 is partial content. Skip. The Brown case at the bottom of p 568 is the start of a new case, but not complete. Skip. Wait, I should check if the decision date for Nicholas is reachable. It‘s likely January or February 2014 based on the NYS2d citation and underlying order date. But I must only use what is in the source. There is no decision date in the source text. One detail: `984NYS2d332` vs `984 N.Y.S.2d 332`. OCR misses spaces. I‘ll add spaces as per standard reporter style. Actually, let‘s look at the screenshot. It says `[984 NYS2d 332]`. Standard spaces. Structure: `` `` `` Order... `` Defendants... (Robinson v Joseph...) `` In opposition... `` report... (Santos v Perez... Colon v Torres... Malupa v Oppong... Rosa v Mejia...) `` Moreover... (Pommells v Perez... Merrick v Lopez-Garcia...) `` Defendants established... (Uddin v Cooper... lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]) `` Given the absence... (Hernandez v Adelango Trucking...) Concur... Wait, the “Concur—” block is usually part of the opinion or a separate line. In these memo decisions, it‘s often at the end of the last paragraph. OCR p 567 shows: “Concur—Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Andrias, Gische and Clark, JJ.” (J.E? Screenshot shows J.P. for Justice Presiding). OCR p 568 shows: “Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Gische and Clark, JJ.” Wait, look at page 567. The concurrence is for the *previous* case. Look at page 568. The concurrence is for Nicholas. Nicholas ends with: “...Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Gische and Clark, JJ.” I‘ll put the concurrence on its own paragraph if it‘s visually separate, or at the end of the last paragraph. In the image, it follows the last sentence after a dash. Normalization of law: `Insurance Law § 5102 [d]` -> `N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102(d)` `90/180-day category` - this is descriptive, not a citation. Case: `Uddin v Cooper, 32 AD3d 270 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]` This is a citation followed by subsequent history. Tag 1: `Uddin v Cooper` Tag 2: `8 NY3d 808` (this is the leave denied entry). Actually, `8 NY3d 808` is the citation for the leave denial. Let‘s check for “Lopez--Garcia” again. Screenshot: “Lopez-- Garcia“. There is a double hyphen at the line break. I will rejoin it as “Lopez-Garcia“. Wait, p 568: “Hernandez v Adelango Trucking, 89 AD3d 407 [1st Dept 2011]“. OCR says `(s- ee Hernandez...)`. That `s- ee` is a line break error for `see`. Final check of the Judges’ names: Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Gische and Clark, JJ. OCR p 567: “Friedman, J.E” -> Screenshot: “Friedman, J.P.” I will use “J.P.” Page 567 marker placement: The text starts with the partial case. I skip that. The Nicholas caption starts. I‘ll put the `midpage-ps n=“567“` before the first content of the Nicholas case. Actually, the instructions say “Always start with immediately after “. So: `` `` `Order, Supreme Court...` Wait, the Nicholas caption is on page 567. Since I moved it to ``, I don‘t need it in the body. The body starts with “Order, Supreme Court...“. One minor detail: `Insurance Law § 5102 [d]`. Bluebook for NY Insurance Law: `N.Y. Ins. Law`. Subsection [d] is actually (d). One more: `8 NY3d 808 [2007]`. NY3d is the reporter (New York Reports, Third Series). Court is `N.Y.` (Court of Appeals of New York). Let‘s review the paragraph break mid-sentence in page 568: “...plaintiff submitted her examining physician’s [page 568] report finding recent range-of-motion deficits.” So: `In opposition, plaintiff submitted her examining physician’s report finding recent range-of-motion deficits. ... ` The Concurrence block: In the image, it‘s at the end of the paragraph after “academic“. `Given the absence of serious injury, the issue of liability is academic (see Hernandez v Adelango Trucking, 89 AD3d 407 [1st Dept 2011]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Gische and Clark, JJ.` Wait, look at OCR on p 568: `academic (s- ee Hernandez...)`. The “see” is part of the parenthetical. Refining normalized cites: - `99 AD3d 568` -> `cite=“99 AD3d 568“` - `107 AD3d 572` -> `cite=“107 AD3d 572“` - `106 AD3d 458` -> `cite=“106 AD3d 458“` - `106 AD3d 538` -> `cite=“106 AD3d 538“` - `95 AD3d 402` -> `cite=“95 AD3d 402“` - `4 NY3d 566` -> `cite=“4 NY3d 566“` - `100 AD3d 456` -> `cite=“100 AD3d 456“` - `32 AD3d 270` -> `cite=“32 AD3d 270“` - `8 NY3d 808` -> `cite=“8 NY3d 808“` - `89 AD3d 407` -> `cite=“89 AD3d 407“` All these are full citations. One last check: `90/180-day injury` is a term from the NY Insurance Law. It‘s not a citation. Ready to generate.

Case Details

Case Name: Nicholas v. Cablevision Systems Corp.

Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date Published: Apr 17, 2014

Citations: 116 A.D.3d 567; 984 N.Y.S.2d 332; 2014 NY Slip Op 2682

Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.