Qurashi v. Hittin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Qurashi v. Hittin

51 A.D.3d 652, 858 N.Y.S.2d 675

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

DecidedMay 6, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 652 (Qurashi v. Hittin) 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

Qurashi v. Hittin, 51 A.D.3d 652, 858 N.Y.S.2d 675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated October 15, 2007, which denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a 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]; see also Meyers v Bobower Yeshiva Bnei Zion, 20 AD3d 456 [2005]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact regarding whether his range of motion limitations, as quantified and compared to normal by his chiropractor (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]), his bulging discs at C3-4, C4-5, C6-7, L1-2, L2-3, and L3-4, and his herniated discs at C5-6 and L4-5, were causally related to or exacerbated by the subject accident (cf. McKenzie v Redi, 47 AD3d 775, 776 [2008]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. [653]*653Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Covello, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated October 15, 2007, which denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a 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]; see also Meyers v Bobower Yeshiva Bnei Zion, 20 AD3d 456 [2005]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact regarding whether his range of motion limitations, as quantified and compared to normal by his chiropractor (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]), his bulging discs at C3-4, C4-5, C6-7, L1-2, L2-3, and L3-4, and his herniated discs at C5-6 and L4-5, were causally related to or exacerbated by the subject accident (cf. McKenzie v Redi, 47 AD3d 775, 776 [2008]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. [653]*653Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Covello, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 652, 858 N.Y.S.2d 675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/qurashi-v-hittin-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack