From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Elfiky v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 27, 2003
301 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-06952

Submitted January 8, 2003.

January 27, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated June 19, 2002, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiffs Salem Elfiky and Hala Khalaf-Elfiky on the ground that the plaintiff Hala Khalaf-Elfiky did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Wollerstein Futoran (Sweetbaum Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. [Marshall D. Sweetbaum] of counsel), for appellants.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiffs Salem Elfiky and Hala Khalaf-Elfiky is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted by those plaintiffs.

"Although a bulging or herniated disc may constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), a plaintiff must provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the disc injury and its duration" (Duldulao v. City of New York, 284 A.D.2d 296, 297). The defendants' medical expert examined the injured plaintiff Hala Khalaf-Elfiky and stated in his affirmed report that, inter alia, she had full range of motion of the lumbosacral spine and no muscular spasm. This proof was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff Hala Khalaf-Elfiky did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the accident (see Villalta v. Schechter, 273 A.D.2d 299, 300).

The medical evidence submitted in opposition to the motion was not in proper evidentiary form, and thus failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268).

FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Elfiky v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 27, 2003
301 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Elfiky v. Harris

Case Details

Full title:SALEM ELFIKY, ET AL., respondents, ET AL., plaintiff, v. LARRY HARRIS, ET…

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

Date published: Jan 27, 2003

Citations

301 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
754 N.Y.S.2d 59

Citing Cases

Werthner v. Lewis

worn medical reports once the defendant has proffered such evidence to establish his or her prima facie case…

Shockley v. Gonzalez-Castillion

The initial burden on a motion for summary judgment rests with the movant (see Hanna v Alverado, 16 A.D.3d…