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.
Stephanie Belarge, appellant, v. Mark Kardas, respondent, et al., defendants.
Submitted-December 2, 2009
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated September 17, 2008, as granted the motion of the defendant Mark Kardas for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Mark Kardas for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) is denied.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the defendant Mark Kardas (hereinafter the respondent) failed to meet his 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). In support of his motion, the respondent relied on, inter alia, the affirmed medical report of Dr. Marc Bergeron, the orthopedic surgeon who examined the plaintiff on February 16, 2007. In that report Dr. Bergeron noted a limitation in the plaintiff's lumbar spine range of motion which was not sufficiently quantified or qualified to establish the absence of a significant limitation of motion (see Letts v. Bleichner, 56 AD3d 619; Kaminsky v. Waldner, 19 AD3d 370). Since the respondent failed to meet his prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Kaminsky v. Waldner, 19 AD3d 370; Coscia v. 938 Trading Corp., 283 A.D.2d 538).
SKELOS, J.P., FLORIO, BALKIN, BELEN and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
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: 2008-09761 (Index No. 1778 /07)
Decided: January 19, 2010
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)