Nussbaum v. Bablu

138 A.D.3d 703, 27 N.Y.S.3d 886
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 6, 2016
Docket2015-03141
StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 703 (Nussbaum v. Bablu) 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
Nussbaum v. Bablu, 138 A.D.3d 703, 27 N.Y.S.3d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Ahmed Ferdos Bablu and Vddin Kamal appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rivera, J.), dated January 7, 2015, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants Ahmed Ferdos Bablu and Vddin Kamal (hereinafter together the moving defendants) met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a *704 serious injury within the meaning 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, 956-957 [1992]). The moving defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff’s spine did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Staff v Yshua, 59 AD3d 614 [2009]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained serious injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine as a result of the subject accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the moving defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Balkin, J.P., Roman, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc.
774 N.E.2d 1197 (New York Court of Appeals, 2002)
Perl v. Meher
960 N.E.2d 424 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
Gaddy v. Eyler
591 N.E.2d 1176 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
Staff v. Mair Yshua
59 A.D.3d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 A.D.3d 703, 27 N.Y.S.3d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nussbaum-v-bablu-nyappdiv-2016.