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.
Elizabeth Ramos, appellant, v. Mirza S. Jahar, et al., respondents.
Submitted—October 25, 2024
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aaron D. Maslow, J.), dated June 23, 2023. The order granted the defendants' 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) as a result of the subject accident.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendants moved 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) as a result of the subject accident. In an order dated June 23, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.
The defendants met 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 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957). The defendants established, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the plaintiff's right knee, right shoulder, and lumbar region of her spine were degenerative in nature and not caused by the subject accident (see Amirova v. JND Trans, Inc., 206 AD3d 601, 602; Gash v. Miller, 177 AD3d 950; Gouvea v. Lesende, 127 AD3d 811). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's experts failed to address the findings of the defendants' radiologist that the alleged injuries were degenerative in nature (see Amirova v. JND Trans, Inc., 206 AD3d at 602; Mnatcakanova v. Elliot, 174 AD3d 798, 800; Zavala v. Zizzo, 172 AD3d 793, 794; Cavitolo v. Broser, 163 AD3d 913, 914).
In light of our determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.
DILLON, J.P., DOWLING, VENTURA and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2023–07956 (Index No. 517244 /19)
Decided: December 24, 2024
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)