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.
John P. Walter, etc., respondent, v Robert Walch, et al., appellants.
Submitted—October 5, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated September 20, 2010, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the infant, Paige Gildard, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendants, on their cross motion for summary judgment, failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff's infant stepdaughter, Paige Gildard (hereinafter the infant), 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). The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the infant sustained certain injuries to the cervical region of her spine as a result of the subject accident. Although the defendants asserted that those alleged injuries did not constitute serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d at 352; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d at 955–956), the defendants' examining orthopedic surgeon recounted, in his affirmed report submitted in support of the cross motion, that the range-of-motion testing he performed during his examination revealed the existence of a significant limitation of motion in the region (see Cues v. Tavarone, 85 AD3d 846).
Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden on their cross motion for summary judgment, their cross motion was properly denied without considering whether the plaintiff's opposition papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (id. at 846).
DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, LEVENTHAL, AUSTIN and MILLER, 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: 2010–10670 (Index No. 6169 /08)
Decided: October 18, 2011
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)