June v. Sheikh Ali Akhtar

62 A.D.3d 427, 878 N.Y.S.2d 59
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 7, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 427 (June v. Sheikh Ali Akhtar) 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
June v. Sheikh Ali Akhtar, 62 A.D.3d 427, 878 N.Y.S.2d 59 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinions

[428]*428Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered on or about March 20, 2008, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of a serious injury as required by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ examining physician noted limitations in range of motion with respect to plaintiff June’s left knee and lumbar spine and with respect to plaintiff Smalls’ right shoulder and cervical and lumbar spines, and plaintiffs’ MRI results showed disc herniations and bulges, a tear to June’s left meniscus, and a labral tear in Smalls’ right shoulder. The cited impairments are consistent with plaintiffs’ description that June hit his left knee against the dashboard, and that Smalls’ upper body hit the steering wheel, when defendants’ car collided with them, and the doctor’s notes and the MRI results support a finding of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (see Guerrero v Bernstein, 57 AD3d 845 [2008]; Noriega v Sauerhaft, 5 AD3d 121, 122 [2004]).

In the circumstances presented, particularly the fact that plaintiffs were relatively young (June was 31 years old and Smalls 25 at the time of the accident), defendants’ claim that the abnormal MRI findings and restricted ranges of motion were due to degenerative changes unrelated to the accident requires further elaboration to satisfy defendants’ burden on the motion, to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

Related

Perdomo v. City of New York
129 A.D.3d 585 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Angeles v. American United Transportation, Inc.
110 A.D.3d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Davis v. Alnhmi
96 A.D.3d 507 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Vaughan v. Leon
94 A.D.3d 646 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Mitchell v. Calle
90 A.D.3d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Eteng v. Dajos Transportation
89 A.D.3d 506 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Feliz v. Fragosa
85 A.D.3d 417 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
De La Cruz v. Hernandez
84 A.D.3d 652 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Vera v. Islam
70 A.D.3d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Amamedi v. Archibala
70 A.D.3d 449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Frias v. James
69 A.D.3d 466 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Colon v. Bernabe
65 A.D.3d 969 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Lake v. Celen
27 Misc. 3d 284 (New York Supreme Court, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 A.D.3d 427, 878 N.Y.S.2d 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/june-v-sheikh-ali-akhtar-nyappdiv-2009.