Khalil v. Morris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Khalil v. Morris

304 A.D.2d 530, 761 N.Y.S.2d 70

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

DecidedApril 7, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 530 (Khalil v. Morris) 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

Khalil v. Morris, 304 A.D.2d 530, 761 N.Y.S.2d 70 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants William Morris and Margaret Morris appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated June 21, 2002, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 957 [531]*531[1992]). In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff established that triable issues of fact exist by submitting the affirmed medical report of his treating physician which indicated limitations in the range of motion of his cervical and lumbar spines, and their duration (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]). The physician’s opinion was supported by, inter alia, magnetic resonance imaging reports which were initially submitted by the appellants and were properly before the court (see Raso v Statewide Auto Auction, 262 AD2d 387 [1999]). Altman, J.P., Smith, Luciano, Adams and Cozier, 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 William Morris and Margaret Morris appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated June 21, 2002, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 957 [531]*531[1992]). In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff established that triable issues of fact exist by submitting the affirmed medical report of his treating physician which indicated limitations in the range of motion of his cervical and lumbar spines, and their duration (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]). The physician’s opinion was supported by, inter alia, magnetic resonance imaging reports which were initially submitted by the appellants and were properly before the court (see Raso v Statewide Auto Auction, 262 AD2d 387 [1999]). Altman, J.P., Smith, Luciano, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 530, 761 N.Y.S.2d 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khalil-v-morris-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack