Baez v. Rahamatali

New York Court of Appeals

Baez v. Rahamatali

850 N.E.2d 19, 6 N.Y.3d 868, 817 N.Y.S.2d 204

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 4, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 850 N.E.2d 19 (Baez v. Rahamatali) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baez v. Rahamatali, 850 N.E.2d 19, 6 N.Y.3d 868, 817 N.Y.S.2d 204 (N.Y. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Defendants met their initial burden of establishing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to provide an objective medical basis supporting the conclusion that she sustained a serious injury (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350-351 [2002]). Moreover, plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence that her current alleged need for surgery is causally related to the automobile accident (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 572, 580 [2005]). Summary judgment was therefore properly granted to defendants.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Cipajrick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Defendants met their initial burden of establishing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to provide an objective medical basis supporting the conclusion that she sustained a serious injury (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350-351 [2002]). Moreover, plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence that her current alleged need for surgery is causally related to the automobile accident (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 572, 580 [2005]). Summary judgment was therefore properly granted to defendants.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Cipajrick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

850 N.E.2d 19, 6 N.Y.3d 868, 817 N.Y.S.2d 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baez-v-rahamatali-ny-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack