Rosado v. Martinez

289 A.D.2d 386, 734 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12151
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 17, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 386 (Rosado v. Martinez) 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
Rosado v. Martinez, 289 A.D.2d 386, 734 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Hak Soo Yun, a/k/a Hak Soo [387]*387Yum, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated December 14, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him 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, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law 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. In opposition, the plaintiff submitted the affirmations and reports of her treating and examining neurologists, and the affidavit and report of her physical therapist, which showed that she sustained a permanent partial disability in her cervical spine, her right hip, and right knee as a result of the subject accident. The plaintiff’s proof specified, among other things, upon a clinical range of motion examination, the degrees to which the plaintiff’s movements were restricted in her spine, hip, and knee. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a permanent and consequential limitation of her spine, right hip, and right knee (see, Vitale v Lev Express Cab Corp., 273 AD2d 225; Meyer v Gallardo, 260 AD2d 556; Ventura v Moritz, 255 AD2d 506; Torres v Micheletti, 208 AD2d 519). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Shtesl v. Kokoros
56 A.D.2d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Jules v. Barbecho
55 A.D.3d 548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Prescott v. Alpha Amadoujalloh
55 A.D.3d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Stefko v. Arslan
54 A.D.3d 936 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Rodriguez v. Reyes
51 A.D.3d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Casey v. Mas Transportation, Inc.
48 A.D.3d 610 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Morales v. Theagene
46 A.D.3d 775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Nigro v. Kovac
45 A.D.3d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Gibson v. Tordoya
44 A.D.3d 1000 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Green v. Nara Car & Limo, Inc.
42 A.D.3d 430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Francovig v. Senekis Cab Corp.
41 A.D.3d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Santiago v. Rodriguez
38 A.D.3d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Lim v. Tiburzi
36 A.D.3d 671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Galati v. Brice
290 A.D.2d 530 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
289 A.D.2d 386, 734 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosado-v-martinez-nyappdiv-2001.