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.
Nubia Tavaras, respondent, v. Herkimer Taxi Corp., et al., appellants.
Submitted-November 17, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated April 22, 2010, which denied their 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).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants failed to meet 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). In support of their motion, the defendants relied on the affirmed medical report of Dr. Ashok Anant, their examining neurologist. During his examination of the plaintiff on February 27, 2009, Dr. Anant noted significant limitations in the range of motion of the plaintiff's lumbar spine (see Cheour v Pete & Sals Harborview Transp., Inc., 76 AD3d 989; Mondevil v. Kumar, 74 AD3d 1295; Smith v. Hartman, 73 AD3d 736; Quiceno v. Mendoza, 72 AD3d 669; Giacomaro v. Wilson, 58 AD3d 802; McGregor v. Avellaneda, 50 AD3d 749; Wright v. AAA Constr. Servs., Inc., 49 AD3d 531). While Dr. Anant stated that the plaintiff presented with “magnification of symptoms,” and that the decreased ranges of motion noted by him in the lumbar region of the spine was “subjective,” he failed to explain or substantiate those conclusions with any objective medical evidence (see Reitz v. Seagate Trucking, Inc., 71 AD3d 975; Bengaly v. Singh, 68 AD3d 1030; Ortiz v. S & A Taxi Corp., 68 AD3d 734).
Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiff's papers in opposition to the defendants' motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v. 938 Trading Corp., 283 A.D.2d 538).
RIVERA, J.P., COVELLO, ENG, LEVENTHAL and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
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: 2010-05974 (Index No. 11083 /08)
Decided: November 30, 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)