I Mei Chou v. Welsh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

I Mei Chou v. Welsh

15 A.D.3d 622, 791 N.Y.S.2d 579, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2077

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 622 (I Mei Chou v. Welsh) 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

I Mei Chou v. Welsh, 15 A.D.3d 622, 791 N.Y.S.2d 579, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2077 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated June 20, 2002, which denied their 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 affirmed, with costs.

Although the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]), the plaintiff submitted an affirmation from a physician stating that he examined a CT Scan of the plaintiffs lumbar spine and observed a fracture at the L3 level which he attributed to the subject automobile accident. This evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury (see Poma v Ortiz, 2 AD3d 616 [2003]; Smolyar v Krongauz, 2 AD3d 518 [2003]). Florio, J.P, Krausman, Crane, Rivera and Fisher, 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 appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated June 20, 2002, which denied their 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 affirmed, with costs.

Although the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]), the plaintiff submitted an affirmation from a physician stating that he examined a CT Scan of the plaintiffs lumbar spine and observed a fracture at the L3 level which he attributed to the subject automobile accident. This evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury (see Poma v Ortiz, 2 AD3d 616 [2003]; Smolyar v Krongauz, 2 AD3d 518 [2003]). Florio, J.P, Krausman, Crane, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 622, 791 N.Y.S.2d 579, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/i-mei-chou-v-welsh-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack