Ali v. Agboglo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ali v. Agboglo

14 A.D.3d 580, 789 N.Y.S.2d 222, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 518

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 24, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.3d 580 (Ali v. Agboglo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ali v. Agboglo, 14 A.D.3d 580, 789 N.Y.S.2d 222, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Robert Day appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered July 21, 2003, which [581]*581denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Waseca Cook on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although the defendant Robert Day (hereinafter the appellant) made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Waseca Cook (hereinafter the respondent) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]), the affidavit of the respondent’s chiropractor submitted in opposition to the motion was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The respondent’s chiropractor stated that upon his examination of her, he found diminished deep tendon reflexes in the right upper and lower extremities, and diminished sensation along the L5 and S1 dermatomal patterns in the right lower extremity. In addition, he found that the ranges of motion of the cervical spine and lumbar spine were restricted in all directions, and quantified those restrictions.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Robert Day appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered July 21, 2003, which [581]*581denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Waseca Cook on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although the defendant Robert Day (hereinafter the appellant) made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Waseca Cook (hereinafter the respondent) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]), the affidavit of the respondent’s chiropractor submitted in opposition to the motion was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The respondent’s chiropractor stated that upon his examination of her, he found diminished deep tendon reflexes in the right upper and lower extremities, and diminished sensation along the L5 and S1 dermatomal patterns in the right lower extremity. In addition, he found that the ranges of motion of the cervical spine and lumbar spine were restricted in all directions, and quantified those restrictions.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 580, 789 N.Y.S.2d 222, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ali-v-agboglo-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack