Cabrera v. Momperousse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cabrera v. Momperousse

47 A.D.3d 864, 850 N.Y.S.2d 620

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.3d 864 (Cabrera v. Momperousse) 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

Cabrera v. Momperousse, 47 A.D.3d 864, 850 N.Y.S.2d 620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated May 7, 2007, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Tomas Cabrera did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of their motion, the defendants submitted evidence that the plaintiff Tomas Cabrera (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) had significant restrictions in motion of the lumbar and cervical regions of his spine (see Bentivegna v Stein, 42 AD3d 555, 556 [2007]; see also McDowall v Abreu, 11 AD3d 590, 591 [2004]; Meyer v Gallardo, 260 AD2d 556, 556-557 [1999]). Accordingly, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the injured 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]). Under these circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider whether the papers submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendants’ motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Frudenti, P.J., Skelos, Miller, Covello and McCarthy, 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, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated May 7, 2007, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Tomas Cabrera did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of their motion, the defendants submitted evidence that the plaintiff Tomas Cabrera (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) had significant restrictions in motion of the lumbar and cervical regions of his spine (see Bentivegna v Stein, 42 AD3d 555, 556 [2007]; see also McDowall v Abreu, 11 AD3d 590, 591 [2004]; Meyer v Gallardo, 260 AD2d 556, 556-557 [1999]). Accordingly, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the injured 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]). Under these circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider whether the papers submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendants’ motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Frudenti, P.J., Skelos, Miller, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 864, 850 N.Y.S.2d 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabrera-v-momperousse-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack