Caballero v. Fev Taxi Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caballero v. Fev Taxi Corp.

49 A.D.3d 387, 852 N.Y.2d 776

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 387 (Caballero v. Fev Taxi Corp.) 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

Caballero v. Fev Taxi Corp., 49 A.D.3d 387, 852 N.Y.2d 776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affirmed reports of the neurologist and orthopedist who examined plaintiff failed to set forth the objective tests performed to support their claims that there was no limitation of range of motion, and did not address the objective findings of plaintiffs MRIs showing, inter alia, herniated and bulging discs (see Nix v Yang Gao Xiang, 19 AD3d 227 [2005]). Defendants’ failure to meet their initial burden of establishing a prima facie case renders it unnecessary [388]*388to consider plaintiffs opposition to the motion (see Offman v Singh, 27 AD3d 284 [2006]). Concur-Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

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

Defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affirmed reports of the neurologist and orthopedist who examined plaintiff failed to set forth the objective tests performed to support their claims that there was no limitation of range of motion, and did not address the objective findings of plaintiffs MRIs showing, inter alia, herniated and bulging discs (see Nix v Yang Gao Xiang, 19 AD3d 227 [2005]). Defendants’ failure to meet their initial burden of establishing a prima facie case renders it unnecessary [388]*388to consider plaintiffs opposition to the motion (see Offman v Singh, 27 AD3d 284 [2006]). Concur-Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 387, 852 N.Y.2d 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caballero-v-fev-taxi-corp-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack