Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Locke v. Buksh 58 A.D.3d 698

← Cases

Locke v. Buksh

58 A.D.3d 698 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2009-01-20 English

Contents

Majority

p. 698
Edwin Johnny Locke, Respondent, v Sikamdar Ali Buksh et al., Appellants.
[872 NYS2d 148]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), dated December 5, 2007, 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 Supreme Court properly determined that 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) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 , 956-957 [1992]). In support of their motion, the defendants relied upon, inter alia, the affirmed medical report of their examining orthopedic surgeon. In his report he noted the existence of significant limi

p. 699
tations in the plaintiffs lumbar spine range of motion (see Hurtte v Budget Roadside Care, 54 AD3d 362 [2008]; Jenkins v Miled Hacking Corp., 43 AD3d 393 [2007]; Bentivegna v Stein, 42 AD3d 555 [2007]; Zamaniyan v Vrabeck, 41 AD3d 472 [2007]). Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Hurtte v Budget Roadside Care, 54 AD3d 362 [2008]; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Skelos, J.E, Dillon, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cases cited

Statutes and regulations cited