Trigg v. Gradischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trigg v. Gradischer

6 A.D.3d 525, 774 N.Y.S.2d 391

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

DecidedApril 12, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 525 (Trigg v. Gradischer) 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

Trigg v. Gradischer, 6 A.D.3d 525, 774 N.Y.S.2d 391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 24, 2003, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted medical evidence that they each sustained herniated discs and decreased ranges of motion in their lumbar and cervical spines. The plaintiffs’ treating physician affirmed that the plaintiffs’ injuries were permanent and causally related to the subject motor vehicle accident. This evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., supra; Acosta v Rubin, 2 AD3d 657 [2003]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, H. Miller, Schmidt 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 plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 24, 2003, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted medical evidence that they each sustained herniated discs and decreased ranges of motion in their lumbar and cervical spines. The plaintiffs’ treating physician affirmed that the plaintiffs’ injuries were permanent and causally related to the subject motor vehicle accident. This evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., supra; Acosta v Rubin, 2 AD3d 657 [2003]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 525, 774 N.Y.S.2d 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trigg-v-gradischer-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack