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.
Sulamif VOLOZHINETS, Appellant, v. William T. DeHAVEN, et al., Respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cammer, J.), dated September 15, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendants William T. DeHaven and Stephanie M. Forsman, and the separate motion of the defendant Arthur Volozhinets, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them 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 reversed, on the law, with costs, the motions are denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
In support of their motions for summary judgment, the defendants submitted the affirmed medical reports of their examining physicians stating that magnetic resonance imagings of the plaintiff's cervical and lumbar spines taken within two months of the accident showed, inter alia, disc herniations at the C5-C6, C6-C7, and L4-L5 levels, and specifying the degrees of limitation in the range of motion in the plaintiff's cervical and lumbar spines. A disc herniation may constitute a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law (see, Flanagan v. Hoeg, 212 A.D.2d 756, 757, 624 N.Y.S.2d 853). The defendants failed to demonstrate through admissible evidence that the herniations were not related to the subject accident (see, Chaplin v. Taylor, 273 A.D.2d 188, 708 N.Y.S.2d 465; Friedman v. U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 A.D.2d 266, 627 N.Y.S.2d 765), or that they did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437, 640 N.Y.S.2d 604). Accordingly, the defendants failed to make out a prima facie case for judgment as a matter of law. Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiff's papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Boland v. Dig America, 277 A.D.2d 337, 717 N.Y.S.2d 205).
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: August 20, 2001
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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)