From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaplun v. Septama

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 27, 2007
38 A.D.3d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Summary

finding that “plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by presenting medical evidence contemporaneous with the subject accident that she sustained a possible fracture from the subject accident”

Summary of this case from Brackenbury v. Franklin

Opinion

No. 2006-07763.

March 27, 2007.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated May 3, 2006, which denied his 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).

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

ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JOSEPH COVELLO, DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, JJ.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant met his burden of establishing prima facie that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury from the subject accident ( see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Baez v Rahamatali, 6 NY3d 868, 869; Cervino v Gladysz-Steliga, 36 AD3d 744; Wright v Peralta, 26 AD3d 489). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by presenting medical evidence contemporaneous with the subject accident that she sustained a possible fracture from the subject accident ( see Bonner v Hill, 302 AD2d 544). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Summaries of

Kaplun v. Septama

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 27, 2007
38 A.D.3d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

finding that “plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by presenting medical evidence contemporaneous with the subject accident that she sustained a possible fracture from the subject accident”

Summary of this case from Brackenbury v. Franklin
Case details for

Kaplun v. Septama

Case Details

Full title:SOFYA KAPLUN, Respondent, v. MIGUEL SEPTAMA, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 27, 2007

Citations

38 A.D.3d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2712
834 N.Y.S.2d 206

Citing Cases

Worhacz v. Torres

He opined, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that plaintiff's fracture is causally related with…

Worhacz v. Torres

In his affirmation, Dr. Vesey avers that he examined plaintiff on November 2, 2004, and his findings include…