Hi Ock Park-Lee v. Voleriaperia

67 A.D.3d 734, 888 N.Y.S.2d 215
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 10, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 67 A.D.3d 734 (Hi Ock Park-Lee v. Voleriaperia) 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
Hi Ock Park-Lee v. Voleriaperia, 67 A.D.3d 734, 888 N.Y.S.2d 215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cullen, J.), dated September 29, 2009, which granted the defendants’ 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, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of 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 support of their motion, the defendants relied upon, inter alia, the affirmed medical report of their examining neurologist Dr. Monette G. Basson. In her report, Dr. Basson noted that the [735]*735plaintiff had a significant limitation in her lumbar spine range of motion, and concluded that the decreased range of motion was “voluntary.” However, she failed to explain or substantiate, with objective medical evidence, the basis for her conclusion that the limitation was voluntary (see Cuevas v Compote Cab Corp., 61 AD3d 812 [2009]; Colon v Chuen Sum Chu, 61 AD3d 805 [2009]; Torres v Garcia, 59 AD3d 705 [2009]; Busljeta v Plandome Leasing, Inc., 57 AD3d 469 [2008]).

Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiffs opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Cuevas v Compote Cab Corp., 61 AD3d at 812; Colon v Chuen Sum Chu, 61 AD3d at 805; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Farrah v. Pinos
103 A.D.3d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Collazo v. Anderson
103 A.D.3d 527 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Quiceno v. Mendoza
72 A.D.3d 669 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Reitz v. Seagate Trucking, Inc.
71 A.D.3d 975 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Chun Ok Kim v. Orourke
70 A.D.3d 995 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Mondert v. Iglesia De Dios Pentecostal Cristo Viene, Inc.
69 A.D.3d 590 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 A.D.3d 734, 888 N.Y.S.2d 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hi-ock-park-lee-v-voleriaperia-nyappdiv-2009.