Edriste v. Morales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edriste v. Morales

49 A.D.3d 594, 852 N.Y.2d 792

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 594 (Edriste v. Morales) 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

Edriste v. Morales, 49 A.D.3d 594, 852 N.Y.2d 792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant 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, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact through the submission of an affirmed magnetic resonance imaging report finding a herniated disc in her lumbar spine and the affirmed report of her examining physician, who averred that her cervical and lumbar spine ranges of motion were diminished on all planes as quantified in the report (see Cordero v Ford Credit Titling Trust Ins. Ctr., 39 AD3d 796, 796-797 [2007]; Hyun Jun Kim v Collazo, 38 AD3d 842, 842-843 [2007]; Santiago v Rodriguez, 38 AD3d 639, 640 [2007]; Lim v Tiburzi, 36 AD3d 671, 672 [2007]; Collado v Pineda, 31 AD3d 684, 685 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Prudenti, 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

The defendant 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, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact through the submission of an affirmed magnetic resonance imaging report finding a herniated disc in her lumbar spine and the affirmed report of her examining physician, who averred that her cervical and lumbar spine ranges of motion were diminished on all planes as quantified in the report (see Cordero v Ford Credit Titling Trust Ins. Ctr., 39 AD3d 796, 796-797 [2007]; Hyun Jun Kim v Collazo, 38 AD3d 842, 842-843 [2007]; Santiago v Rodriguez, 38 AD3d 639, 640 [2007]; Lim v Tiburzi, 36 AD3d 671, 672 [2007]; Collado v Pineda, 31 AD3d 684, 685 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Miller, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 594, 852 N.Y.2d 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edriste-v-morales-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack