SEDA v. KHABRANE (2005)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Celia SEDA, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Noureddine KHABRANE, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Decided: March 01, 2005

MAZZARELLI, J.P., SULLIVAN, WILLIAMS, GONZALEZ, CATTERSON, JJ.

The Sullivan Law Firm, Garden City (Timothy M. Sullivan of counsel), for appellants. Joseph T. Mullen, Jr. & Associates, New York (Mitchell F. Senft of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about March 15, 2004, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants sought summary dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff Celia Seda had not sustained a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). An issue of fact on this point was raised by the affirmations and reports of plaintiffs' doctors and the MRI, showing the injured plaintiff had sustained a herniated disc and several bulging discs, and was experiencing significant limitations in the range of motion in her cervical and lumbosacral spine (see Gonzalez v. Vasquez, 301 A.D.2d 438, 754 N.Y.S.2d 7 [2003]; see also Cespedes v. McNamee, 308 A.D.2d 409, 764 N.Y.S.2d 818 [2003] ).

We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network