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.
Fritz Rocourt, appellant, v. Melmartis Alvelo, et al., respondents.
Submitted-December 15, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), dated September 1, 2009, which granted the separate motions of the the defendant Melmartis Alvelo, the defendants Rajiu R. Latchman and Candice Jarome-Davis, and the defendants Junior A. Williams and Karen M. Rose for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of those defendants on the ground that he did not 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 to the plaintiff, payable by the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them are denied.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the defendants failed to meet their respective prima facie burdens 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 respective motions, the defendants relied on, among other things, the affirmed medical report of Dr. Alan J. Zimmerman, an orthopedic surgeon, dated October 22, 2008, who opined that the plaintiff had significant limitations in his lumbar spine range of motion resulting from the subject accident (see Mondevil v. Kumar, 74 AD3d 1295; Smith v. Hartman, 73 AD3d 736; Quiceno v. Mendoza, 72 AD3d 669; Giacomaro v. Wilson, 58 AD3d 802).
Since the defendants failed to meet their respective prima facie burdens, it is unnecessary to consider whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Coscia v. 938 Trading Corp., 283 A.D.2d 538).
SKELOS, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, HALL and ROMAN, 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: 2009-09645 (Index No. 34327 /06)
Decided: December 28, 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)