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.
Frances BELMONTE, et al., appellants, v. Scott A. COLLINS, et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 18, 1998, which granted the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motions are denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
In support of their respective motions for summary judgment, the defendants submitted, inter alia, reports prepared by the plaintiff's radiologist and a treating physician. The radiologist's report concluded that a magnetic resonance image taken of the plaintiff's lumbar spine approximately one month after the accident revealed the existence of a small central L4-5 disc herniation (see, Mattei v. Kennedy, 243 A.D.2d 690, 664 N.Y.S.2d 572; Flanagan v. Hoeg, 212 A.D.2d 756, 624 N.Y.S.2d 853). The report prepared by the plaintiff's treating physician provided objective evidence of the degree of the limitation of use of the plaintiff's back and right leg. Accordingly, the defendants' motion papers failed to make out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176; Rosmarin v. Lamontanaro, 238 A.D.2d 567, 656 N.Y.S.2d 382; Mendola v. Demetres, 212 A.D.2d 515, 622 N.Y.S.2d 309).
The subsequent sworn affirmation of the plaintiff's treating orthopedic surgeon submitted in opposition to the defendants' motions, which stated the degree of limitation of use of the plaintiff's lower back, its duration, and that it was causally related to the subject accident, served only to underscore the defendants' failure of proof (see, Blusiewicz v. Comeau, 212 A.D.2d 657, 622 N.Y.S.2d 773).
MEMORANDUM BY 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.
Decided: May 17, 1999
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)