Rahman v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rahman v. Brown

6 A.D.3d 518, 775 N.Y.S.2d 344

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

DecidedApril 12, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 518 (Rahman v. Brown) 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

Rahman v. Brown, 6 A.D.3d 518, 775 N.Y.S.2d 344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J), dated January 28, 2003, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motions are denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). However, the affirmations of the plaintiff’s physicians submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motions raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury.

[519]*519Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Adams, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J), dated January 28, 2003, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motions are denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). However, the affirmations of the plaintiff’s physicians submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motions raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury.

[519]*519Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 518, 775 N.Y.S.2d 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rahman-v-brown-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack