Short v. Meza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Short v. Meza

17 A.D.3d 664, 793 N.Y.S.2d 529, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4376

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

DecidedApril 25, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 664 (Short v. Meza) 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

Short v. Meza, 17 A.D.3d 664, 793 N.Y.S.2d 529, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered December 1, 2004, as denied his 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 insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In relying on reports of doctors which indicated a possible disc herniation and diminution of range of motion causally related to the subject accident, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Accord[665]*665ingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion (see Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45 [2005]; Boone v New York City Tr. Auth., 263 AD2d 463 [1999]; see also Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; cf. Meely v 4 G’s Truck Renting Co., 16 AD3d 26 [2005]). H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, 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, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered December 1, 2004, as denied his 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 insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In relying on reports of doctors which indicated a possible disc herniation and diminution of range of motion causally related to the subject accident, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Accord[665]*665ingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion (see Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 45 [2005]; Boone v New York City Tr. Auth., 263 AD2d 463 [1999]; see also Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; cf. Meely v 4 G’s Truck Renting Co., 16 AD3d 26 [2005]). H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 664, 793 N.Y.S.2d 529, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/short-v-meza-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack