Washington v. Asdotel Enterprises, Inc.

66 A.D.3d 880, 887 N.Y.S.2d 623
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 20, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 66 A.D.3d 880 (Washington v. Asdotel Enterprises, Inc.) 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
Washington v. Asdotel Enterprises, Inc., 66 A.D.3d 880, 887 N.Y.S.2d 623 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated January 29, 2009, which denied their 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, with costs.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). Here, the defendants relied on, inter alia, the affirmed medical report of Dr. Gregory Montalbano, their examining orthopedic surgeon. During his examination of the plaintiff on June 20, 2008, Dr. Montalbano noted significant limitations in the plaintiffs cervical and lumbar spine ranges of motion. While Dr. Montalbano concluded that the plaintiff suffered from pre-existing degenerative disc disease in the cervical and lumbar spine, he did not address the plaintiffs allegation in his bill of particulars that the subject accident exacerbated pre-existing degenerative conditions in his cervical and lumbar regions. Thus, the findings of Dr. Montalbano failed to establish that the limitations noted were not caused by the subject accident (see McKenzie v Redl, 47 AD3d 775 [2008]).

Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (id. at 775; see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Fisher, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Menjivar v. Capers
183 N.Y.S.3d 310 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
D'Augustino v. Bryan Auto Parts, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 5708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Edouazin v. Champlain
89 A.D.3d 892 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Ambroselli v. Team Massapequa, Inc.
88 A.D.3d 927 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Pero v. Transervice Logistics, Inc.
83 A.D.3d 681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Reed v. Righton Limo, Inc.
82 A.D.3d 1070 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Keenum v. Atkins
82 A.D.3d 843 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Rabinowitz v. Kahl
78 A.D.3d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Smith v. Rodriguez
69 A.D.3d 605 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 A.D.3d 880, 887 N.Y.S.2d 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-asdotel-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-2009.