Trantel v. Rothenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trantel v. Rothenberg

286 A.D.2d 325, 729 N.Y.S.2d 158, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7847

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

DecidedAugust 6, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 325 (Trantel v. Rothenberg) 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

Trantel v. Rothenberg, 286 A.D.2d 325, 729 N.Y.S.2d 158, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated August 16, 2000, which granted the defendant’s 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

A magnetic resonance image of the plaintiffs lumbar spine, which was submitted by the defendant, showed a bulging disc at L4-L5. The defendant failed to establish, on the motion for summary judgment, that the bulge was not causally related to the subject accident. Further, an affirmed report of a neurologist who examined the plaintiff specified degrees of limitation in her range of motion. Accordingly, the defendant failed to make out a prima facie case of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and it is therefore unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Lewis v White, 274 AD2d 455; Dillon v [326]*326Thomas, 266 AD2d 183). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, 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, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated August 16, 2000, which granted the defendant’s 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

A magnetic resonance image of the plaintiffs lumbar spine, which was submitted by the defendant, showed a bulging disc at L4-L5. The defendant failed to establish, on the motion for summary judgment, that the bulge was not causally related to the subject accident. Further, an affirmed report of a neurologist who examined the plaintiff specified degrees of limitation in her range of motion. Accordingly, the defendant failed to make out a prima facie case of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and it is therefore unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Lewis v White, 274 AD2d 455; Dillon v [326]*326Thomas, 266 AD2d 183). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 325, 729 N.Y.S.2d 158, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trantel-v-rothenberg-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack