Cordero v. Ford Credit Titling Trust Insurance Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cordero v. Ford Credit Titling Trust Insurance Center

39 A.D.3d 796, 834 N.Y.S.2d 721

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

DecidedApril 24, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 796 (Cordero v. Ford Credit Titling Trust Insurance Center) 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

Cordero v. Ford Credit Titling Trust Insurance Center, 39 A.D.3d 796, 834 N.Y.S.2d 721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Patricia Sammon and Brian Sammon appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated July 14, 2006, which denied their motion 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 costs.

The defendants Patricia Sammon and Brian Sammon made a prima facie showing 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 [1992]). However, in opposition to the motion, the plaintiff raised a tri[797]*797able issue of fact by submitting, inter alia, the affirmed report of a neurologist quantifying the decreased range of motion in his cervical and lumbar spines based upon a recent examination, and affirmed magnetic resonance imaging test reports finding multiple disc herniations and bulges (see Santiago v Rodriguez, 38 AD3d 639 [2007]; Lim v Tiburzi, 36 AD3d 671 [2007]; Gonzalez v Baik, 36 AD3d 854 [2007]; Holley v Salsa, Inc., 35 AD3d 814 [2006]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, Covello and Angiolillo, 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 defendants Patricia Sammon and Brian Sammon appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated July 14, 2006, which denied their motion 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 costs.

The defendants Patricia Sammon and Brian Sammon made a prima facie showing 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 [1992]). However, in opposition to the motion, the plaintiff raised a tri[797]*797able issue of fact by submitting, inter alia, the affirmed report of a neurologist quantifying the decreased range of motion in his cervical and lumbar spines based upon a recent examination, and affirmed magnetic resonance imaging test reports finding multiple disc herniations and bulges (see Santiago v Rodriguez, 38 AD3d 639 [2007]; Lim v Tiburzi, 36 AD3d 671 [2007]; Gonzalez v Baik, 36 AD3d 854 [2007]; Holley v Salsa, Inc., 35 AD3d 814 [2006]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 796, 834 N.Y.S.2d 721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cordero-v-ford-credit-titling-trust-insurance-center-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack