From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pennino v. Excellence Transp., Inc.

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 2005
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 52089 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)

Opinion

2005-271 K C.

Decided December 12, 2005.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Eileen Nadelson, J.), entered December 3, 2004. The order denied the motion by defendants Excellence Transportation, Inc. and Ahmed M. Fahmy for summary judgment.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

PRESENT: GOLIA, J.P., RIOS and BELEN, JJ.


Defendants Excellence Transportation, Inc. and Ahmed M. Fahmy moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff did not satisfy the threshold requirement of suffering a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The moving defendants' doctor failed to set forth the objective tests supporting the claim that there was no limitation of motion of plaintiff's lumbar and cervical spines ( see Facci v. Kaminsky, 18 AD3d 806). Furthermore, said doctor did not review an MRI of plaintiff's lumbar spine taken two years before the date of his affirmation. Since defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing a prima facie case that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury, the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition papers need not be considered ( id.).


Summaries of

Pennino v. Excellence Transp., Inc.

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 2005
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 52089 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)
Case details for

Pennino v. Excellence Transp., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DOREEN PENNINO, Respondent, v. EXCELLENCE TRANSPORTATION, INC., AHMED M…

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

Date published: Dec 12, 2005

Citations

2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 52089 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)
814 N.Y.S.2d 563