Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Boland v. Dig America, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 20, 2000

277 A.D.2d 337; 717 N.Y.S.2d 205

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Greenwood v. Tuzzolo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Positko v. Krawiec (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Jimenez v. Darden (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Klimis v. Lopez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Scott v. Roudellou (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Scott v. Albord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Volozhinets v. DeHaven (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants in Action No. 2 appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated March 8, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in Action No. 2 on the ground that the plaintiff in that action did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion. *338In support of their motion, the appellants submitted proof that a magnetic resonance imaging of the plaintiffs cervical spine showed a “posterior herniation of the C5-6 intervertebral disc.” A disc herniation may constitute a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law (see, Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756, 757). The appellants failed to demonstrate that the herniation was not related to the subject accident (see, Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188). Accordingly, the appellants failed to make out a prima facie case for judgment as a matter of law. Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the respondent’s papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.