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.
Garnet WALTERS, et al., respondents, v. Julia PAPANASTASSIOU, et al., appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated June 28, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Garnet Walters did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendants failed to establish that the plaintiff Garnet Walters (hereinafter the injured 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). While the defendants' examining orthopedist stated in his affirmed medical report that the injured plaintiff had “appropriate” range of motion of the cervical spine, and the defendants' examining neurologist stated in his affirmed medical report that the injured plaintiff had “excellent” range of motion of the neck and lower back, they both did so without setting forth the objective testing performed to arrive at their respective conclusions (see Nembhard v. Delatorre, 16 A.D.3d 390, 791 N.Y.S.2d 144). Moreover, while the defendants' examining orthopedist set forth a single range of motion finding as to forward flexion in the injured plaintiff's lumbar spine, he failed to compare that finding with what is normal (see Browdame v. Candura, 25 A.D.3d 747, 807 N.Y.S.2d 658; Paulino v. Dedios, 24 A.D.3d 741, 807 N.Y.S.2d 397; Kennedy v. Brown, 23 A.D.3d 625, 805 N.Y.S.2d 408; Aronov v. Leybovich, 3 A.D.3d 511, 770 N.Y.S.2d 741). Since the defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiffs' papers in opposition to the defendants' motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v. 938 Trading Corp., 283 A.D.2d 538, 725 N.Y.S.2d 349).
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: July 05, 2006
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)