Seda v. Khabrane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seda v. Khabrane

16 A.D.3d 118, 792 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2087

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 118 (Seda v. Khabrane) 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

Seda v. Khabrane, 16 A.D.3d 118, 792 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about March 15, 2004, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants sought summary dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff Celia Seda had not sustained a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). An issue of fact on this point was raised by the affirmations and reports of the treating physicians and the MRI, showing the injured plaintiff had sustained a herniated disc and several bulging discs, and was experiencing significant limitations in the range of motion in her cervical and lumbosacral spine (see Gonzalez v Vasquez, 301 AD2d 438 [2003]; see also Cespedes v McNamee, 308 AD2d 409 [2003]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about March 15, 2004, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants sought summary dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff Celia Seda had not sustained a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). An issue of fact on this point was raised by the affirmations and reports of the treating physicians and the MRI, showing the injured plaintiff had sustained a herniated disc and several bulging discs, and was experiencing significant limitations in the range of motion in her cervical and lumbosacral spine (see Gonzalez v Vasquez, 301 AD2d 438 [2003]; see also Cespedes v McNamee, 308 AD2d 409 [2003]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 118, 792 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seda-v-khabrane-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack