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.
Musa DZAFEROVIC, et al., appellants, v. Jose A. POLONIA, et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), dated October 27, 2005, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Musa Dzaferovic 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 motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Musa Dzaferovic (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (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). In the affirmed medical report of the defendants' examining neurologist there was noted a limitation in the range of motion of the injured plaintiff's left shoulder that was not sufficiently quantified or qualified to establish the absence of a significant limitation of motion (see Whittaker v. Webster Trucking Corp., 33 A.D.3d 613, 823 N.Y.S.2d 95; Kaminsky v. Waldner, 19 A.D.3d 370, 371, 796 N.Y.S.2d 175). Since the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs' papers submitted in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Whittaker v. Webster Trucking Corp., supra; Kaminsky v. Waldner, supra; 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: January 16, 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)