From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prokopenko v. Abrams

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 2005
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 50249 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)

Opinion

2003-1733 K C.

Decided March 2, 2005.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (D. Silber, J.), entered on October 3, 2003, which granted the motion by defendants Jay Abrams and Ryder Truck Rental for summary judgment.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., PATTERSON and GOLIA, JJ.


In support of defendants Abrams' and Ryder Truck Rental's motion for summary judgment, defendants' doctor submitted an affirmation in which he stated that he reviewed plaintiff's medical records. He examined plaintiff and found that his movements appeared to be "supple, without guarding or pain." The range of motion of plaintiff's back was normal. Straight leg raising was negative. This was sufficient to shift the burden to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Mack v. Goodrich, 11 AD3d 846).

The plaintiff unsuccessfully opposed the motion. We note that on appeal, plaintiff's sole contention is that defendants failed to shift the burden to plaintiff, which contention we find to lack merit.


Summaries of

Prokopenko v. Abrams

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 2005
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 50249 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)
Case details for

Prokopenko v. Abrams

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR PROKOPENKO, Appellant, v. JAY ABRAMS and RYDER TRUCK RENTAL…

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

Date published: Mar 2, 2005

Citations

2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 50249 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)