Chakrani v. Beck Cab Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chakrani v. Beck Cab Corp.

82 A.D.3d 436, 917 N.Y.2d 862

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 3, 2011·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[437] Defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants’ examining orthopedic surgeon found, inter alia, limited ranges of motion in plaintiffs cervical and lumbar spines, as well as in his left ankle and foot. These findings clearly raise triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Servones v Toribio, 20 AD3d 330 [2005]). Furthermore, even assuming that defendants had met their initial burden, plaintiffs submissions were sufficient to defeat the motion. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

[437] Defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants’ examining orthopedic surgeon found, inter alia, limited ranges of motion in plaintiffs cervical and lumbar spines, as well as in his left ankle and foot. These findings clearly raise triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Servones v Toribio, 20 AD3d 330 [2005]). Furthermore, even assuming that defendants had met their initial burden, plaintiffs submissions were sufficient to defeat the motion. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Chakrani v. Beck Cab Corp., 82 A.D.3d 436, 917 N.Y.2d 862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

82 A.D.3d 436 (Chakrani v. Beck Cab Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related