Machat v. Mazzarino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Machat v. Mazzarino

59 A.D.3d 500, 872 N.Y.S.2d 718

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.3d 500 (Machat v. Mazzarino) 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

Machat v. Mazzarino, 59 A.D.3d 500, 872 N.Y.S.2d 718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Shakhol Pinkhasov and AM USA, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated June 11, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him 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 appellants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to her right knee within the [501]*501meaning 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 Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). However, the submissions of the plaintiff in opposition, which included an affirmation of her treating orthopedist, who performed surgery on her right knee three months after the accident, and an affirmation of her radiologist, who reported that an MRI taken approximately three weeks after the accident revealed tears in that knee’s menisci and cruciate ligaments, were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Nigro v Kovac, 45 AD3d 547, 547-548 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Fisher, J.E, Covello, Balkin and Belen, 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 Shakhol Pinkhasov and AM USA, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated June 11, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him 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 appellants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to her right knee within the [501]*501meaning 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 Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). However, the submissions of the plaintiff in opposition, which included an affirmation of her treating orthopedist, who performed surgery on her right knee three months after the accident, and an affirmation of her radiologist, who reported that an MRI taken approximately three weeks after the accident revealed tears in that knee’s menisci and cruciate ligaments, were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Nigro v Kovac, 45 AD3d 547, 547-548 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Fisher, J.E, Covello, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 500, 872 N.Y.S.2d 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/machat-v-mazzarino-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack