Minori v. Hernandez Trucking Co.

239 A.D.2d 322, 657 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4615
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 5, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 322 (Minori v. Hernandez Trucking Co.) 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
Minori v. Hernandez Trucking Co., 239 A.D.2d 322, 657 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated May 31, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[323]*323Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff brought this negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when the car in which she was a passenger was struck from behind by a truck owned by the defendant Hernandez Trucking Co., Inc., and operated by the defendant Jose Fuentes. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff did not suffer serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

The court properly denied the defendants’ motion, since they failed to establish that one of the injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff, a second degree tear of the left anterior talofibular ligament of the ankle, did not constitute serious injury. The affirmed report of the neurologist who examined the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants was without evidentiary value with respect to the plaintiff’s alleged ankle injury. The report stated that there was "no problem” with the ankle, but there was no basis given for this conclusion (see, Lopez v Senatore, 65 NY2d 1017, 1019; Attanasio v Lashley, 223 AD2d 614, 615). Moreover, the report failed to indicate whether any objective tests were performed with respect to the ankle injury, or even whether the physician examined her ankle (see, Donnelly v Kurlander, 220 AD2d 716, 717; Jean-Mehu v Berbec, 215 AD2d 440). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Berthold v. Williams
2025 NY Slip Op 50331(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)
Gramajo v. Fox Ride Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 50261(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)
Villavicencio v. Mieles
7 A.D.3d 517 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Morales v. New York City Transit Authority
287 A.D.2d 604 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Papadonikolakis v. First Fidelity Leasing Group, Inc.
283 A.D.2d 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Meyer v. Gallardo
260 A.D.2d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Lubrano v. Brown
251 A.D.2d 383 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 A.D.2d 322, 657 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minori-v-hernandez-trucking-co-nyappdiv-1997.