From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

West v. Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 6, 2001
286 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted June 20, 2001.

August 6, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Edgar Rivera and Logan Bus Co., Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated February 22, 2001, which denied their motion 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).

Mulholland, Minion Roe, Williston Park, N.Y. (Thomas P. Murphy of counsel), for appellants.

Jerome P. Mandel, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Richard A. Klass of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. In support of their motion, the appellants submitted, inter alia, a report by a radiologist which summarized his findings upon reviewing a magnetic resonance image of the plaintiff's lumbar spine taken on October 22, 1997, approximately four months after the subject accident. The radiologist found, inter alia, a left paracentral/posterolateral disc herniation at L5-S1. A disc herniation may constitute a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law (see, Chaplin v. Taylor, 273 A.D.2d 188; Flanagan v. Hoeg, 212 A.D.2d 756, 757). The radiologist also acknowledged that "the specific etiology of the disc herniation is indeterminate from this examination". As the appellants failed to demonstrate that the herniation was not causally related to the subject accident, they failed to make a prima facie demonstration of their entitlement to 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, Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437).

SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, LUCIANO, FEUERSTEIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

West v. Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 6, 2001
286 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

West v. Rivera

Case Details

Full title:CHARLENE WEST, respondent, v. EDGAR RIVERA, ET AL., appellants, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Aug 6, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
728 N.Y.S.2d 789

Citing Cases

Kearse v. New York City Transit Authority

The holding in Bernabel v. Perullo (supra) represents a correct statement of the law. To the extent that…

HACKETT v. AAA EXPEDITED FRGT. SYS., INC.

To establish that she has suffered a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member,…