Mensah v. Salah Enterprises, Inc.

90 A.D.3d 492, 934 N.Y.2d 156

This text of 90 A.D.3d 492 (Mensah v. Salah Enterprises, Inc.) 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
Mensah v. Salah Enterprises, Inc., 90 A.D.3d 492, 934 N.Y.2d 156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

[493]*493Defendants did not establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants submitted affirmed medical reports of an orthopedist and a neurologist, who both examined plaintiff and found that he had normal ranges of motion in his lumbar spine and knees. However, the failure to indicate the objective tests used to determine the range of motion in plaintiffs lumbar spine precludes the grant of summary judgment (see Garvey v Talukder, 74 AD3d 477 [2010]; Beazer v Webster, 70 AD3d 587 [2010]).

In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary to consider plaintiffs opposition to the motion (see Reyes v Diaz, 82 AD3d 484 [2011]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Related

Beazer v. Webster
70 A.D.3d 587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Garvey v. Talukder
74 A.D.3d 477 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Reyes v. Diaz
82 A.D.3d 484 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 A.D.3d 492, 934 N.Y.2d 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mensah-v-salah-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-2011.