Kontomichalos v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kontomichalos v. County of Nassau

49 A.D.3d 506, 855 N.Y.2d 175

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 506 (Kontomichalos v. County of Nassau) 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

Kontomichalos v. County of Nassau, 49 A.D.3d 506, 855 N.Y.2d 175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendants did not satisfy 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 [507]*507Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). In support of their motion, the defendants relied on the affirmed medical reports of their examining orthopedic surgeon and neurologist, which described significant limitations in the range of motion in the plaintiff s cervical and lumbar spines (see Jenkins v Miled Hacking Corp., 43 AD3d 393 [2007]; Bentivegna v Stein, 42 AD3d 555 [2007]; Zamaniyan v Vrabeck, 41 AD3d 472 [2007]; Brown v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 33 AD3d 832 [2006]). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiffs papers in opposition to the defendants’ motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]).

Moreover, on her cross motion the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of serious injury. In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of serious injury.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendants did not satisfy 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 [507]*507Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). In support of their motion, the defendants relied on the affirmed medical reports of their examining orthopedic surgeon and neurologist, which described significant limitations in the range of motion in the plaintiff s cervical and lumbar spines (see Jenkins v Miled Hacking Corp., 43 AD3d 393 [2007]; Bentivegna v Stein, 42 AD3d 555 [2007]; Zamaniyan v Vrabeck, 41 AD3d 472 [2007]; Brown v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 33 AD3d 832 [2006]). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiffs papers in opposition to the defendants’ motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]).

Moreover, on her cross motion the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of serious injury. In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of serious injury.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 506, 855 N.Y.2d 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kontomichalos-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack