From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bentham v. Rojas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 21, 2008
48 A.D.3d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2840.

February 21, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered June 7, 2007, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey Moskovits, P.C., New York (Michael I. Josephs of counsel), for appellant.

Julian J. Bailey Associates, Manhasset (Willard G. LaFauci of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.


Summary judgment was properly denied as plaintiff presented sufficient objective evidence demonstrating the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether he sustained a "serious injury" as a result of the automobile accident between the parties (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). An MRI taken after the accident revealed tears of the medial meniscus and anterior cruciate ligament in Plaintiffs left knee, and the affidavit of Plaintiffs chiropractor and the affirmation of his physician note that following detailed tests, plaintiff had significant and specified limitations of the range of motion with respect to his lumbar and cervical spine and his left knee both shortly after the accident and more than three years later ( see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; see also Britt v Goodspeed Tr., 41 AD3d 179).


Summaries of

Bentham v. Rojas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 21, 2008
48 A.D.3d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Bentham v. Rojas

Case Details

Full title:CRAIG BENTHAM, Respondent, v. Luis ROJAS, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 21, 2008

Citations

48 A.D.3d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1590
851 N.Y.S.2d 514

Citing Cases

Taylor v. Am. Radio Dispatcher

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Buckley and DeGrasse, JJ. Defendants established their prima facie case…

Goutter v. Hurley

It is obvious from her testimony that Goutter regards it as consequential. While Dr. Sprecher does not opine…