From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perry v. Robert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 2008
859 N.Y.S.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

July 1, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated June 12, 2007, which granted the motion of the defendants Robert Brusini and Brian Brusini for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Before: Fisher, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Belen, JJ.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants Robert Brusini and Brian Brusini for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is denied.

The defendants Robert Brusini and Brian Brusini (hereinafter the respondents) failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident ( see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). In support of their motion, the respondents relied upon, inter alia, the affirmed medical reports of their examining orthopedic surgeon. In those reports, the surgeon noted significant range of motion limitations in the plaintiffs' respective left knees, as well as significant range of motion limitations in the lumbar spine of the plaintiff Idell M. Perry ( see Jenkins v Miled Hacking Corp., 43 AD3d 393; Bentivegna v Stein, 42 AD3d 555; Zamaniyan v Vrabeck, 41 AD3d 472; Brown v Motor Veh. Ace. Indem. Corp., 33 AD3d 832; Smith v Delcore, 29 AD3d 890; Sano v Gorelik, 24 AD3d 747; Spuhler v Khan, 14 AD3d 693; Omar v Bello, 13 AD3d 430; Scotti v Boutureira, 8 AD3d 652). Since the respondents failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the papers submitted by the plaintiffs were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Jenkins v Miled Hacking Corp., 43 AD3d 393; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538).


Summaries of

Perry v. Robert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 2008
859 N.Y.S.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Perry v. Robert

Case Details

Full title:IDELL M. PERRY et al., Appellants, v. ROBERT BRUSINI et al., Respondents,…

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

Date published: Jul 1, 2008

Citations

859 N.Y.S.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
859 N.Y.S.2d 565

Citing Cases

Kasper v. NJ Taxi

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants did not meet their prima facie burden of showing…

Gibson-Wallace v. Dalessandro

In this respect, Dr. Khachadurian noted that "chin to the chest" was normal for cervical forward flexion, but…