From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beazer v. Webster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 25, 2010
70 A.D.3d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2234.

February 25, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered December 3, 2008, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Kay Gray, Westbury (Lynn Golder of counsel), for appellants.

Robert D. Rosen, Roslyn, for respondent.

Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


Defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Defendants' experts did not address or attempt to distinguish the objective findings of plaintiff's MRI, the EMG/NCV scan, and the other evidence of serious injury ( see Patterson v Rivera, 49 AD3d 337). Defendants' failure to indicate the objective tests used to determine the range of motion in plaintiff's cervical spine was fatal to their efforts to establish a prima facie case for summary dismissal ( Offman v Singh, 27 AD3d 284).


Summaries of

Beazer v. Webster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 25, 2010
70 A.D.3d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Beazer v. Webster

Case Details

Full title:REGINA D. BEAZER, Respondent, v. FRASER M. WEBSTER et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 25, 2010

Citations

70 A.D.3d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1584
895 N.Y.S.2d 755

Citing Cases

Thomas v. City of N.Y.

As to Thomas' left knee. Dr. Montalbano attributed the loss of range of motion due her surgery performed two…

Singer v. Gae Limo Corp.

Defendant's neurologist and orthopedist set forth the tests they performed and recorded ranges of motion…