From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Han v. Karimzada

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Feb 27, 2019
169 A.D.3d 1109 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2017–06495 Index No. 603724/16

02-27-2019

YE JIN HAN, Appellant, v. Nahid KARIMZADA, Respondent.

Andrew Park, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Alexander Berger of counsel), for appellant. Sette & Apoznanski (Russo & Tambasco, Melville, N.Y. [Susan J. Mitola and Gerard Ferrara], of counsel), for respondent.


Andrew Park, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Alexander Berger of counsel), for appellant.

Sette & Apoznanski (Russo & Tambasco, Melville, N.Y. [Susan J. Mitola and Gerard Ferrara], of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

DECISION & ORDERIn an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Randy Sue Marber, J.), entered May 25, 2017. The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident.ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident on September 28, 2013. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the accident. The Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.

The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197 ; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956–957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176 ). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that any limitations of range of motion were not significant (see Il Chung Lim v. Chrabaszcz, 95 A.D.3d 950, 951, 944 N.Y.S.2d 236 ; McLoud v. Reyes, 82 A.D.3d 848, 849, 919 N.Y.S.2d 32 ; Staff v. Yshua, 59 A.D.3d 614, 874 N.Y.S.2d 180 ). In opposition, however, the plaintiff submitted competent evidence of significant loss of range of motion in the lumbar region of her spine and her right shoulder, which raised a triable issue of fact (see Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208, 218–219, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424 ).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Han v. Karimzada

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Feb 27, 2019
169 A.D.3d 1109 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Han v. Karimzada

Case Details

Full title:Ye Jin Han, appellant, v. Nahid Karimzada, respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Feb 27, 2019

Citations

169 A.D.3d 1109 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
92 N.Y.S.3d 906
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 1453

Citing Cases

Mazumdar v. Sherpa

See Shamsoodeen v. Kibong, 41 A.D.3d 577, 578, 839 N.Y.S.2d 765, 766 [2nd Dept, 2007]; Grossman v Wright, 268…

Mays v. Silvercup Scaffolding 1 LLC

In this regard, the Plaintiff must submit quantitative objective findings, as well as opinions relative to…