Iacovazzo v. Ahmad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Iacovazzo v. Ahmad

27 A.D.3d 421, 810 N.Y.S.2d 519

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 421 (Iacovazzo v. Ahmad) 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

Iacovazzo v. Ahmad, 27 A.D.3d 421, 810 N.Y.S.2d 519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated November 16, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and denied their cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendant’s motion and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ arguments, the defendant’s evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted the affirmation of the injured plaintiffs treating physician who set forth the objective tests he used to quantify significant limitations in the range of motion of the injured plaintiffs cervical spine. The [422]*422plaintiffs also submitted the affirmation of the examining radiologist who confirmed, in his annexed report dated December 10, 2002, the presence of herniated discs at C3-4, C4-5, and C6-7. Moreover, the injured plaintiffs treating physician opined that the injuries to her cervical spine were caused by the accident and amounted to a significant limitation of use of her cervical spine. This evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff sustained a serious injury as a result of the subject accident.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated November 16, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and denied their cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendant’s motion and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ arguments, the defendant’s evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted the affirmation of the injured plaintiffs treating physician who set forth the objective tests he used to quantify significant limitations in the range of motion of the injured plaintiffs cervical spine. The [422]*422plaintiffs also submitted the affirmation of the examining radiologist who confirmed, in his annexed report dated December 10, 2002, the presence of herniated discs at C3-4, C4-5, and C6-7. Moreover, the injured plaintiffs treating physician opined that the injuries to her cervical spine were caused by the accident and amounted to a significant limitation of use of her cervical spine. This evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff sustained a serious injury as a result of the subject accident.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 421, 810 N.Y.S.2d 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iacovazzo-v-ahmad-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack