Cooper v. LI Construction Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cooper v. LI Construction Inc.

45 A.D.3d 623, 845 N.Y.S.2d 454

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 623 (Cooper v. LI Construction Inc.) 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

Cooper v. LI Construction Inc., 45 A.D.3d 623, 845 N.Y.S.2d 454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), dated March 13, 2006, which granted the respective motions of the defendants LI Construction, Inc., and Hernán E. Zelaya, and the defendant Bruce I. Vanacour for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 one bill of costs to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain either a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident or the exacerbation of a preexisting injury (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45, 46 [2005]). In his affirmed medical report, the orthopedist retained by the defendants LI Construction, Inc., and Hernan E. Zelaya found that the plaintiffs range of motion was normal in his cervical and lumbosacral spines, as well as in his left knee, right shoulder, and right wrist. Moreover, an MRI report prepared by the plaintiffs own physician, upon which the defendants also relied in support of their motion, indicated that, while there existed a “[m]ild, diffuse disc bulge at C5-C6,” it “does not appear to be impinging on the cord or nerve roots and should not be causing symptoms.” In opposition, the medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Parente v Kang, 37 AD3d 687 [2007]).

Accordingly, the defendants’ motions for summary judgment were properly granted. Spolzino, J.P., Krausman, Carni and Dickerson, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), dated March 13, 2006, which granted the respective motions of the defendants LI Construction, Inc., and Hernán E. Zelaya, and the defendant Bruce I. Vanacour for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 one bill of costs to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain either a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident or the exacerbation of a preexisting injury (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45, 46 [2005]). In his affirmed medical report, the orthopedist retained by the defendants LI Construction, Inc., and Hernan E. Zelaya found that the plaintiffs range of motion was normal in his cervical and lumbosacral spines, as well as in his left knee, right shoulder, and right wrist. Moreover, an MRI report prepared by the plaintiffs own physician, upon which the defendants also relied in support of their motion, indicated that, while there existed a “[m]ild, diffuse disc bulge at C5-C6,” it “does not appear to be impinging on the cord or nerve roots and should not be causing symptoms.” In opposition, the medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Parente v Kang, 37 AD3d 687 [2007]).

Accordingly, the defendants’ motions for summary judgment were properly granted. Spolzino, J.P., Krausman, Carni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 623, 845 N.Y.S.2d 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-li-construction-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack