Lewis v. White

274 A.D.2d 455, 712 N.Y.S.2d 121, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7851
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 17, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 274 A.D.2d 455 (Lewis v. White) 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
Lewis v. White, 274 A.D.2d 455, 712 N.Y.S.2d 121, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant John White, Jr., appeals and the defendants James R. Moore and Maurice R. Samuels separately appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated September 17, 1999, as denied their respective motions 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, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ separate motions. In support of their respective motions the appellants relied on a Magnetic Resonance Image of the plaintiff’s lumbar spine which revealed a herniated disc at level L5-S1. A disc herniation may constitute a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law (see, Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756, 757). The appellants submitted reports of two doctors who both failed to establish that the disc herniation was not causally related to the subject accident. Moreover, after performing straight leg raising tests on the plaintiff, one of the defendants’ doctors found a 20 degree limitation in range of motion. This same doctor causally related these injuries to the subject accident.

[456]*456Accordingly, the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case for judgment as a matter of law. Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiff’s papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Newman-Bachhuber v. Yukun Hu
295 A.D.2d 412 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Jankowsky v. Smith
294 A.D.2d 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Trantel v. Rothenberg
286 A.D.2d 325 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
274 A.D.2d 455, 712 N.Y.S.2d 121, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-white-nyappdiv-2000.