Mohamed Rustam v. Azad Allie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mohamed Rustam v. Azad Allie

234 A.D.2d 355, 651 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12897

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 9, 1996·Published

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, [356] etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated January 22, 1996, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Mohamed Rustam did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met his burden of demonstrating that the injured plaintiff did not suffer from any condition defined in the Insurance Law as a serious injury (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Plainly, the nature of the injured plaintiff’s cervical and lumbar injuries are insignificant within the meaning of the No-Fault statute (see, Rhind v Naylor, 187 AD2d 498; Partlow v Meehan, 155 AD2d 647). Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, [356] etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated January 22, 1996, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Mohamed Rustam did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met his burden of demonstrating that the injured plaintiff did not suffer from any condition defined in the Insurance Law as a serious injury (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Plainly, the nature of the injured plaintiff’s cervical and lumbar injuries are insignificant within the meaning of the No-Fault statute (see, Rhind v Naylor, 187 AD2d 498; Partlow v Meehan, 155 AD2d 647). Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Mohamed Rustam v. Azad Allie, 234 A.D.2d 355, 651 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

234 A.D.2d 355 (Mohamed Rustam v. Azad Allie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related