Bagot v. Kulbir Kaur Singh

59 A.D.3d 368, 871 N.Y.S.2d 917
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 368 (Bagot v. Kulbir Kaur Singh) 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
Bagot v. Kulbir Kaur Singh, 59 A.D.3d 368, 871 N.Y.S.2d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated February 7, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In support of their motion, the defendants relied upon, inter alia, the affirmed medical report of their examining orthopedic surgeon in which he noted the existence of a significant limitation in the plaintiffs left knee range of motion (see Hurtte v Budget Roadside Care, 54 AD3d 362 [2008]; Jenkins v Miled Hacking Corp., 43 AD3d 393 [2007]; Bentivegna v Stein, 42 AD3d 555 [2007]; Zamaniyan v Vrabeck, 41 AD3d 472 [2007]). Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Hurtte v Budget Roadside Care, 54 AD3d 362 [2008]; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Miller, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Black v. County of Dutchess
87 A.D.3d 1097 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Borras v. Lewis
79 A.D.3d 1084 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Leopold v. New York City Transit Authority
72 A.D.3d 906 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Croyle v. Monroe Woodbury Central School District
71 A.D.3d 944 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Kjono v. Fenning
69 A.D.3d 581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Smith v. Rodriguez
69 A.D.3d 605 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Wallace v. Adam Rental Transportation, Inc.
68 A.D.3d 856 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Buono v. Sarnes
66 A.D.3d 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Loor v. Lozado
66 A.D.3d 847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Alvarez v. Dematas
65 A.D.3d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Held v. Heideman
63 A.D.3d 1105 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Hwa Soon Um v. Hoi Ku Yang
63 A.D.3d 686 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Landman v. Sarcona
63 A.D.3d 690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Alam v. Karim
61 A.D.3d 904 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 A.D.3d 368, 871 N.Y.S.2d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bagot-v-kulbir-kaur-singh-nyappdiv-2009.