Russo v. Cooke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russo v. Cooke

35 A.D.3d 707, 828 N.Y.S.2d 421

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 707 (Russo v. Cooke) 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

Russo v. Cooke, 35 A.D.3d 707, 828 N.Y.S.2d 421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered November 10, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The plaintiff claims that she injured her lower back in the subject accident and a magnetic resonance imaging scan [708]*708indicated a disc herniation at L4-5. However, the affirmed medical report of the defendants’ examining neurologist did not reflect that he ever tested the range of motion of that region of the plaintiffs body, although he did test the range of motion of the plaintiffs cervical spine (see DeJesus v Tanenbaum, 29 AD3d 852 [2006]; Beyel v Console, 25 AD3d 636 [2006]; Edwards v New York City Tr. Auth., 17 AD3d 628 [2005]). Under the circumstances, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiff’s papers in opposition to the defendants’ motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see DeJesus v Tanenbaum, supra; Beyel v Console, supra; Edwards v New York City Tr. Auth., supra; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Florio, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Covello, 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, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered November 10, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The plaintiff claims that she injured her lower back in the subject accident and a magnetic resonance imaging scan [708]*708indicated a disc herniation at L4-5. However, the affirmed medical report of the defendants’ examining neurologist did not reflect that he ever tested the range of motion of that region of the plaintiffs body, although he did test the range of motion of the plaintiffs cervical spine (see DeJesus v Tanenbaum, 29 AD3d 852 [2006]; Beyel v Console, 25 AD3d 636 [2006]; Edwards v New York City Tr. Auth., 17 AD3d 628 [2005]). Under the circumstances, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiff’s papers in opposition to the defendants’ motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see DeJesus v Tanenbaum, supra; Beyel v Console, supra; Edwards v New York City Tr. Auth., supra; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Florio, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 707, 828 N.Y.S.2d 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-cooke-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack