Locke v. Buksh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Locke v. Buksh

58 A.D.3d 698, 872 N.Y.S.2d 148

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 698 (Locke v. Buksh) 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

Locke v. Buksh, 58 A.D.3d 698, 872 N.Y.S.2d 148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), dated December 5, 2007, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 determined that the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the 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, 956-957 [1992]). In support of their motion, the defendants relied upon, inter alia, the affirmed medical report of their examining orthopedic surgeon. In his report he noted the existence of significant limi[699]*699tations in the plaintiffs lumbar spine range of motion (see Hurtte v Budget Roadside Care, 54 AD3d 362 [2008]; Jenkins v Miled Hacking Corp., 43 AD3d 393 [2007]; Bentivegna v Stein, 42 AD3d 555 [2007]; Zamaniyan v Vrabeck, 41 AD3d 472 [2007]). Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Hurtte v Budget Roadside Care, 54 AD3d 362 [2008]; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Skelos, J.E, Dillon, Garni and Leventhal, 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 appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), dated December 5, 2007, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 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 determined that the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the 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, 956-957 [1992]). In support of their motion, the defendants relied upon, inter alia, the affirmed medical report of their examining orthopedic surgeon. In his report he noted the existence of significant limi[699]*699tations in the plaintiffs lumbar spine range of motion (see Hurtte v Budget Roadside Care, 54 AD3d 362 [2008]; Jenkins v Miled Hacking Corp., 43 AD3d 393 [2007]; Bentivegna v Stein, 42 AD3d 555 [2007]; Zamaniyan v Vrabeck, 41 AD3d 472 [2007]). Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Hurtte v Budget Roadside Care, 54 AD3d 362 [2008]; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Skelos, J.E, Dillon, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 698, 872 N.Y.S.2d 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/locke-v-buksh-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack