Fakhoury v. Kinlock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fakhoury v. Kinlock

27 A.D.3d 416, 812 N.Y.S.2d 591

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 416 (Fakhoury v. Kinlock) 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

Fakhoury v. Kinlock, 27 A.D.3d 416, 812 N.Y.S.2d 591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated December 20, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain either a permanent consequential limitation or a significant limitation of her lumbar spine 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]). One of the defendant’s own examining physicians who saw the plaintiff found that the plaintiffs herniation at L4-5 was caused by the accident and was a permanent injury. Moreover, while that physician specified the ranges of motion in the plaintiffs lumbar spine, he failed to compare those findings to the normal range of motion (see Aronov v Leybovich, 3 AD3d 511 [2004]). Consequently, since the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the sufficiency of the papers submitted in opposition to the motion need not be considered (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, 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, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated December 20, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain either a permanent consequential limitation or a significant limitation of her lumbar spine 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]). One of the defendant’s own examining physicians who saw the plaintiff found that the plaintiffs herniation at L4-5 was caused by the accident and was a permanent injury. Moreover, while that physician specified the ranges of motion in the plaintiffs lumbar spine, he failed to compare those findings to the normal range of motion (see Aronov v Leybovich, 3 AD3d 511 [2004]). Consequently, since the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the sufficiency of the papers submitted in opposition to the motion need not be considered (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 416, 812 N.Y.S.2d 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fakhoury-v-kinlock-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack