Ford v. Thomas

123 A.D.3d 760, 999 N.Y.S.2d 107
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 10, 2014
Docket2013-08502
StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.3d 760 (Ford v. Thomas) 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
Ford v. Thomas, 123 A.D.3d 760, 999 N.Y.S.2d 107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Kesha D. Thomas appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Graham, J.), dated June 27, 2013, as denied that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her by the plaintiff Arthur Boone on the ground that Boone did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellant met her prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Arthur Boone 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]). The appellant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of Boone’s spine and to Boone’s left shoulder did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]).

*761 In opposition, however, Boone raised triable issues of fact as to whether he sustained serious injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine and to his left shoulder (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her by Boone.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc.
774 N.E.2d 1197 (New York Court of Appeals, 2002)
Perl v. Meher
960 N.E.2d 424 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
Gaddy v. Eyler
591 N.E.2d 1176 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
Staff v. Mair Yshua
59 A.D.3d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
123 A.D.3d 760, 999 N.Y.S.2d 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-thomas-nyappdiv-2014.