Merle v. Rebate Rent a Car II Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merle v. Rebate Rent a Car II Corp.

266 A.D.2d 438, 698 N.Y.S.2d 879

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 438 (Merle v. Rebate Rent a Car II Corp.) 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

Merle v. Rebate Rent a Car II Corp., 266 A.D.2d 438, 698 N.Y.S.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In consolidated actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant in Action No. 2 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated September 18, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in that action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in Action No. 2, the defendant in that action relied upon the unsworn reports of the plaintiffs own treating chiropractor and examining physicians (see, Vignola v Varrichio, 243 AD2d 464; Torres v Micheletti, 208 AD2d 519; Hochlerin v Tolins, 186 AD2d 538). Those reports indicate that as a result of the subject accident, the plaintiff suffered, inter alia, a disc herniation at L5-S1, disc protrusion at L4-L5, and permanent impairment of motion of his lumbar spine. Accordingly, the defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Mattei v Kennedy, 243 AD2d 690; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756; Jackson v United Parcel Serv., 204 AD2d 605). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In consolidated actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant in Action No. 2 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated September 18, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in that action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in Action No. 2, the defendant in that action relied upon the unsworn reports of the plaintiffs own treating chiropractor and examining physicians (see, Vignola v Varrichio, 243 AD2d 464; Torres v Micheletti, 208 AD2d 519; Hochlerin v Tolins, 186 AD2d 538). Those reports indicate that as a result of the subject accident, the plaintiff suffered, inter alia, a disc herniation at L5-S1, disc protrusion at L4-L5, and permanent impairment of motion of his lumbar spine. Accordingly, the defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Mattei v Kennedy, 243 AD2d 690; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756; Jackson v United Parcel Serv., 204 AD2d 605). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 438, 698 N.Y.S.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merle-v-rebate-rent-a-car-ii-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack