Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Susanne NIGRO, appellant, v. Barbara L. KOVAC, respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), dated November 14, 2006, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she 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, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.
The defendant met her prima facie burden by establishing 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 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176; see also Meyers v. Bobower Yeshiva Bnei Zion, 20 A.D.3d 456, 797 N.Y.S.2d 773). Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, in opposition the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained either a permanent consequential or significant limitation of use of her cervical spine as a result of the subject accident. The plaintiff's treating chiropractor opined in her affidavit, based on her contemporaneous and most recent examinations of the plaintiff, as well as upon her review of the plaintiff's cervical magnetic resonance imaging report, which showed, inter alia, a herniated disc at C5-6, that the plaintiff's cervical injuries and range of motion limitations observed were permanent and causally related to the subject accident, and not the result of any preexisting degenerative conditions (see Green v. Nara Car & Limo, Inc., 42 A.D.3d 430, 839 N.Y.S.2d 543; Lim v. Tiburzi, 36 A.D.3d 671, 672, 829 N.Y.S.2d 145; Shpakovskaya v. Etienne, 23 A.D.3d 368, 369, 804 N.Y.S.2d 767; Clervoix v. Edwards, 10 A.D.3d 626, 627, 781 N.Y.S.2d 690; Acosta v. Rubin, 2 A.D.3d 657, 659, 768 N.Y.S.2d 642; Rosado v. Martinez, 289 A.D.2d 386, 387, 734 N.Y.S.2d 622; Vitale v. Lev Express Cab Corp., 273 A.D.2d 225, 226, 708 N.Y.S.2d 692).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 07, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)