From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rahman v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 2004
6 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-02137.

Decided April 12, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated January 28, 2003, which granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Steven Louros, New York, N.Y. for appellant.

Robert J. Cava, P.C., West Babylon, N.Y., for respondent Abdul Rahman.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident ( see Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345; Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). However, the affirmations of the plaintiff's physicians submitted in opposition to the defendants' motions raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants' motions for summary judgment.

SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, LUCIANO and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rahman v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 2004
6 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Rahman v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:GUL KHANDA RAHMAN, appellant, v. WILMA BROWN, ET AL., respondents

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

Date published: Apr 12, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 344

Citing Cases

Guerrero v. Sadiq

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Although the defendants made a prima…