From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jimenez v. Darden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 14, 2002
290 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-03352

Submitted December 12, 2001.

January 14, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered March 21, 2001, which granted the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff Angela Jimenez did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Dominick J. Robustelli, White Plains, N.Y. (Alexander V. Sansone of counsel), for appellants.

Faust, Goetz, Schenker Blee, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Eileen M. Ventura of counsel), for respondent Peter A. Wynn.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motions are denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In support of their motions for summary judgment, the defendants submitted evidence that the injured plaintiff was suffering from disc herniations at the C5-C6 and C6-C7 levels and limitations in the range of motion of her cervical spine. The defendants failed to demonstrate that the injured plaintiff's herniated discs do not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Flanagan v. Hoeg, 212 A.D.2d 756, 757). The defendants failed to demonstrate through admissible evidence that the herniations were not related to the subject accident (see, Chaplin v. Taylor, 273 A.D.2d 188; Friedman v. U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 A.D.2d 266), or that the limited range of motion of the cervical spine did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy, 226 A.D.2d 437; cf., Duldulao v. City of New York, 284 A.D.2d 296). Accordingly, the defendants failed to make out a prima facie case for judgment as a matter of law. Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs' papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Boland v. Dig America, 277 A.D.2d 337).

O'BRIEN, J.P., McGINITY, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Jimenez v. Darden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 14, 2002
290 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Jimenez v. Darden

Case Details

Full title:ANGELA JIMENEZ, ET AL., appellants, v. STACEY DARDEN, ET AL., respondents

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

Date published: Jan 14, 2002

Citations

290 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
736 N.Y.S.2d 80

Citing Cases

Snipes v. Riaz

Serious Injury and 90/180-Day Claim On a "serious injury "threshold motion for summary judgment, it is the…

Hall-Rosiecki v. Vasile

He does not comment on whether there was indeed a tear and if there was, whether it was causally related to…