Summary
In DeVeglio v. Oliveri (277 AD2d 345), evidence was submitted that was substantially similar to what was submitted in the case at bar.
Summary of this case from Meely v. 4 G'S Truck RentingOpinion
Submitted October 25, 2000.
November 20, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated January 10, 2000, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Ciarelli Dempsey, Melville, N.Y. (John L. Ciarelli of counsel), for appellants.
Rubin Fiorella, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Charlie Green of counsel), for respondents.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants submitted the initial magnetic resonance imaging report of the injured plaintiff's lumbar spine showing herniated discs at L3-4 and L4-5. In contrast, upon reviewing the same film, the defendants' medical experts concluded that the injured plaintiff's lumbar spine showed signs of degenerative disc disease. By submitting contradictory medical proof on the nature of the injury sustained by the injured plaintiff, the defendants failed to establish that they were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiffs' papers in opposition to the defendants' motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Chaplin v. Taylor, 273 A.D.2d 188; Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437, 438).