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.
Iftikhar BAIG, et al., Respondents, Shabina Baig, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clarisa TAMAN, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff Shabina Baig appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated April 11, 2001, and the defendants Clarisa Taman and Herzel Taman, and the defendant Asad Ali, separately appeal from so much of the same order as denied those branches of their respective motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiffs Iftikhar Baig, Sumbell Baig, Nehan Baig, and Mohammad Baig against them.
ORDERED that the appeal of the plaintiff Shabina Baig is dismissed as abandoned (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c],[e] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the defendants; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs Iftikhar Baig, Sumbell Baig, Nehan Baig, and Mohammad Baig payable by the defendants.
The defendants' evidence, which included, inter alia, the unsworn reports of their medical expert (see Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268, 587 N.Y.S.2d 692), failed to establish a prima facie case that neither Iftikhar Baig, Sumbell Baig, Nehan Baig, nor Mohammad Baig sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Chaplin v. Taylor, 273 A.D.2d 188, 708 N.Y.S.2d 465).
Under the circumstances, we need not consider whether the respondents' papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437, 640 N.Y.S.2d 604).
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 04, 2002
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)