From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trantel v. Rothenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 6, 2001
286 A.D.2d 325 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted June 6, 2001.

August 6, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated August 16, 2000, which granted the defendant's 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).

Rubin Licatesi, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Jason S. Firestein of counsel), for appellant.

Epstein, Hill, Grammatico Gann, Mineola, N.Y. (Michael Callari III of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, NANCY E. SMITH, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


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

A magnetic resonance image of the plaintiff's lumbar spine, which was submitted by the defendant, showed a bulging disc at L4-L5. The defendant failed to establish, on the motion for summary judgment, that the bulge was not causally related to the subject accident. Further, an affirmed report of a neurologist who examined the plaintiff specified degrees of limitation in her range of motion. Accordingly, the defendant failed to make out a prima facie case of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and it is therefore unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiff's papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Lewis v. White, 274 A.D.2d 455; Dillon v. Thomas, 266 A.D.2d 183).

RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, McGINITY, SMITH and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Trantel v. Rothenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 6, 2001
286 A.D.2d 325 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Trantel v. Rothenberg

Case Details

Full title:JEANNE M. TRANTEL, appellant, v. V.A. ROTHENBERG, respondent

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

Date published: Aug 6, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 325 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
729 N.Y.S.2d 158

Citing Cases

Urbanski v. Mulieri

The defendant failed to demonstrate that those limitations were not causally related to the subject accident.…

Tamayo v. Turman

y days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment"…