Thomas v. Booker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Booker

76 A.D.2d 456, 905 N.Y.S.2d 771

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

DecidedAugust 17, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 76 A.D.2d 456 (Thomas v. Booker) 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

Thomas v. Booker, 76 A.D.2d 456, 905 N.Y.S.2d 771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered October 29, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion by defendants Ahmed and Sancho Cab and the cross motion by defendant Booker for summary judgment dismissing the complaint except with respect to the 90/180 day category under Insurance Law § 5102, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion and cross motion granted in full, and the complaint dismissed in its entirety.

Defendants made a prima facie showing that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by preexisting, degenerative conditions rather than the accident (Ortiz v Ash Leasing, Inc., 63 AD3d 556, 557 [2009]). Plaintiff’s submissions were insufficient to defeat summary judgment not only because her experts failed to raise an issue of fact addressing the evidence of her preexisting cervical spine disease with “factually based medical opinions ruling out. . . degenerative conditions as the cause of her limitations” (Rose v Citywide Auto Leasing, Inc., 60 AD3d 520 [2009]), but also because her experts failed to demonstrate a causal nexus between the accident and plaintiffs injury in the first instance (Jimenez v Rojas, 26 AD3d 256, 257 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, McGuire, Acosta and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered October 29, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion by defendants Ahmed and Sancho Cab and the cross motion by defendant Booker for summary judgment dismissing the complaint except with respect to the 90/180 day category under Insurance Law § 5102, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion and cross motion granted in full, and the complaint dismissed in its entirety.

Defendants made a prima facie showing that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by preexisting, degenerative conditions rather than the accident (Ortiz v Ash Leasing, Inc., 63 AD3d 556, 557 [2009]). Plaintiff’s submissions were insufficient to defeat summary judgment not only because her experts failed to raise an issue of fact addressing the evidence of her preexisting cervical spine disease with “factually based medical opinions ruling out. . . degenerative conditions as the cause of her limitations” (Rose v Citywide Auto Leasing, Inc., 60 AD3d 520 [2009]), but also because her experts failed to demonstrate a causal nexus between the accident and plaintiffs injury in the first instance (Jimenez v Rojas, 26 AD3d 256, 257 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, McGuire, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 456, 905 N.Y.S.2d 771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-booker-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack